UBUNTU
I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society.
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Diversity within unity and change over time is the reality of Creation. Peter Such, poet and writer (1943–)
Neither praise nor shoot the messenger: the message is all.

 

 

Peter Such

Peter Such

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields. 

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England.
Formerly working in printing and publishing Peter Such is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him.
He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town.
 He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997, its purpose being to force the Referendum we are now having.

www.petersuch.org www.petersuch.com
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (peter.such.5)

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS CURRENT BLOG ANNOTATIONS/OTHER REFERENCES

Last published
Monday 17th October 2016 [late after-noon]

 EU ARGUMENT—IN OR OUT?   AFTER THE REFERENDUM
The Weekly Commentary     MOVING ON

GENERAL AND COMMENTARY INDEX
NEVER FORGET
It was Labour and the Lib/Dems that denied us the political vote that turned commercial agreements on trade into political authoritarian diktat. As Churchill said "Trust the British people". Labour refused to do so and remains frightened of such a debate.
We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had France not panicked over the greater empire and commonwealth that we created, for which reason they denied us earlier entry and ensured the rationality and logic we would have brought was excluded from the EU's basic structure, causing our ultimate departure.
  


AFTER THE REFERENDUM–1

Monday 17th October 2016 [late after-noon]
Yesterday, The Sunday Times published Boris Johnson's argument for remaining in the EU. I feel my contribution earlier on this web was more lucid but it is good to compare, especially now we are pro-actively seeking the road out of our blindly entered into maze. What is astounding is the presumption of the civil service that it knew the electorate's opinion better than their political masters. Clearly our own civil servants had less of a clue of what was going on in the public mind. It was their influence that watered down Cameron's demands and raises the question, to what extent has our own civil service been reduced in its capacity to operate, due to the sheer incompetence of those in Brussels who have always been over-anxious to show how totally inadequate they all are? The civil services' detachment from practical reality may explain why private companies are increasingly showing their own complete incapacities to render service, which I will address on my Weekly Comment page.
     Boris witters along my own lines regarding Cameron's gutlessness in his seeking new terms, such gutlessness we can now attribute to our own civil service, more concerned for their ultimate relationships for their EU compatriots than rendering service to this country. All the more reason for making it "out"!

Thursday 13th October 2016 [evening]
I have previously (not necessarily on this page) expressed my surprise at the number of "retired" people who have complained at having nothing to do. I do feel sorry for them, that they should be of such a disposition but also sorry for all the charitable entities for whom they presumably could do so much. I also feel something of a hypocrite that I am myself am so concentrated on my own affairs I neither have time to offer elsewhere. My problem is tiredness, which besets many people and on which one of my consultants commented, in his report to my GP, is very difficult tomanage.
     For the last three days I have been almost normal, following a particularly long period of exhaustion and today I am enjoying my living room view down the valley, with a singularly superior air of retired contentment. More detail anon on both my Weekly Commentary page and later on my NHS page. For now, I am simply saying, to those who are regular readers, I'm still ongoing!
     Interesting, I find an odd note I made sometime after Saturday's post. "It now appears Theresa May preferred Leave which is why she was so quiet over the referendum. Seemingly a parallel course to my believed Corbyn approach!"

Saturday 24th September 2016 [evening]
So much for professional politicians. The Labour politicians have just engineered a arty leadership election to re-elect the leader their members had already elected... and they think thy are fit to run the country? The members have re-elected him with a greater majority, just as the voters voted for Brexit following Osborne's waffle about how disastrous this would be. You do not tell the British people what to think, you serve your purpose and do as you are told! Modern politicians are too fired with the ego of their own career-planning instead of rendering service, as required. It is a result everyone expected... except, it seems, Labour MPs. If they don't know what their own party wants how on earth dare they presume to know what the country wants?

Friday 23rd September 2016
Continuing my discussions with my Canadian friend.
"Your '… Brexit was a kind of a symbol that strengthened Nazi-racist craziness and made it more confident. It meant that British Nazis and racists are not isolated and alone, but enjoy some social support.' This is a nonsense opinion in that context but as concern as to how the EU might turn out it is not an infeasible consideration.
     “On 12th August, page 4 of 7, you wrote ... 'Our floods have been seriously exacerbated, if not specifically caused by EU regulations.'  ”
      'As I later wrote, in effect, the mere fact of the EU has caused complete upheaval across diverse sectors. Perhaps I assume you know more about me than I think. At the same time as being mayor I was also a councillor and standing for election to parliament for the Referendum Party.  As such I was involved in diverse committees across a diverse range of local government bodies, as well as interacting nationally through consultative bodies.
          It is from that direct involvement at different levels of government, involving a full political range across many entities, from which I draw the authority of my opinion. That allows for taking into account the particular political individual interpretations (and within, as well as across, the parties there was dissension). This is directly due to the “professional politicians” who should have run things without the referendum, according to you. It is these people who have failed to take into account the "... administrative confusion/wilful manipulation deriving from EU interference in the administrative structure generally at a high level, before the event." Also bear in mind the present Labour Party kerfuffle arises entirely due to the egos of your "professional politicians" whose first priorities are their career strategies NOT in the rendering of service to the electorate.
      That is my authority, direct involvement with diverse individuals, experienced elected politicians as well as professional civil servants literally across the country. This was not just for reasons described but because Berkhamsted at that time was one of ten towns selected for a major national investment programme (in relation to by-passes and their commercial effects) and so we naturally interacted with one another.
     “This present discussion has to do with my interest in determining how the British public was persuaded to vote 'leave' on June 23rd. It's immaterial whether I agree with that result: my interest is in finding out how it happened.”
      You are missing the point entirely. First, ignore the referendum. The EU has never sold itself nor been sold by our own people. It has been received as an imposition ever since Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The market has always been acceptable but the legalistic twaddle never has, nor has the idea that we do not control our own borders. That, you can put down to our own “professionals” not putting the points across properly and most important of all not holding the referendum at the time. That is where it has gone wrong.
      Our own “professional” people, admitting (privately not publicly) we would not want it, delayed asking in the hope we would be lulled, by default of time, into acceptance by automacy. We were never persuaded to leave: we were never persuaded to accept. Leave was an inherent automacy by default of never being asked, in a cool, calm presentation of the case. Something every one of your "professionals" refused to deliver and actually doing the very thing common sense told them not to do, threaten: so the electorate went in the opposite direction, somewhat further perhaps, than where they already were!
      How did I end up on the town council? Because we and clearly the majority actively involved in the town agreed the town council needed a kick up the bum and it was a traditionally Conservative town. As with the microcosm, so with the macrocosm. Penning, a health minister and his Hemel constituency (for which I stood twenty years ago) were for out. Gauke (a Treasury minister) for his (Berkhamsted’s) constituency was for Remain (and gave a very good town meeting) but the constituency voted Brexit.
      The referendum is a separate issue. Cameron proved how disconnected parliament is from the people. He thought we would say “yes” (automacy) and lacking managerial competence never prepared for that answer. The answer “Leave” was the default position, which had to be turned over. No such attempt was made. As I previously wrote, one often finds oneself voting differently on the same subject dependent upon the circumstances. So, with Cameron. We never knew from which position he was speaking. He was PM, leader of the Conservative party and leader of the Remain campaign. There was never a clear, separate, government position. Both sides dissolved into two independent rugby teams permanently in a scrum. Does that answer your question?
      My reference to religion was solely to highlight that problems arise through the stupidity of inadequate men. Even being purely secular they cannot get it right and still persist with dreams.
      My other friend was only mentioned in the context of the floods, as he is near a major flood area and related to me from direct experience of the area and its history.

Thursday 8th September 2016
Gavin Hewitt's current assessment seems a reasonable comment at this time.

Of late I have been having an exchange of emails with an old British friend who is now permanently in Canada. It is interesting to see how Brexit is viewed from overseas in his case. The following text in this section "After the Referendum–1" is in the sequence of the email communication, so runs sequentially over several days. Normally posts work in reverse, the latest news being the first to be read. The sequence reverts to 'normal' from today (5th September 2016). The quoted material starts Sunday 4th September 2016 and itself commmences a week or two following the Referendum. Double quotes are his writing, single quotes are mine.

Monday 5th September 2016 [mid after-noon]
'Gentle banter has always been the joy of our erratic communication. 
      I agree “the behaviour of politicians in the western democracies in recent years has brought the office into disrepute!” Unfortunately, that instinctively discolours anything emanating from them and instinctively jaundices “new thinking”.
     “I thought you were a man of principle. I thought that if you gave me a reason for voting 'leave', there would be substance to it.”
      'Then let’s deal with principles. Management is the key to running a country but politicians never leave their stately homes of being politicians. Politics are for election. From then on you are ‘management’. Manage! They don’t, they maintain politics, no longer relevant. They look to the short-term of the next election. Irrelevant, management requires twenty to fifty years of planning. Short-term election success follows if you are open and go about things in the right way.' “… but every piece of writing I could find placed the blame on farming practices. You stated in your sentence, just quoted, that EU regulations "seriously exacerbated" the floods. Monbiot placed the blame squarely on a corrupt British government minister and her relationship with the NFU. Now you say there is nothing wrong with that article "in principle". Well, is there something wrong with it in practice?””
     ' As I wrote, like the subject of spiritualism, this is a subject on which you are clearly unhappy to get a grip on. In effect you are responding as a large proportion of this country has responded to the EU. There is simply a base rejection of the politicisation and therefore legal effect and other changes perceived as being wilfully thrust upon us. We have lost control of our own country and we were not asked. Our politicians, backed by monied self-interests such as the finance sector have deliberately avoided the issue until now. Now they have to face the answer they would have got twenty years ago and specifically avoided hearing. Nothing has changed. I quoted you that councillor. That has been your preferred “professional elected representative” class you think should run the country without answering to the opinion of the electorate, who pays.
      'Just come up on the TV news screen is a poll (missed who conducted it) saying 62% replied they were happy with Brexit. Statistics, timing of them, who/how selected, long-term effect of current changes etc all means statistics will vary over the next 2 or 3 years and be essentially meaningless at any specific time. That is the sort of response we would have got twenty years ago (when I stood for parliament) had the country been asked, precisely why our politicians never asked. Unlike my Lib/Dem councillor, who believed in further delay, Cameron was may be twenty years too soon. As far as my integrity is concerned this is the question that should have been asked twenty years ago, which is why I stood up to be counted to ask it! It is the fact of the EU that all these problems arise.
     ' You are trying to find the sapling that is the cause of a specific. All specifics are caused by the bloody great forest called the EU. The political involvement of what was originally accepted as an economically 'shrugged shoulders of “suppose it’ll do”' acceptance. Then the EU started playing silly buggers and our stupid “professionally competent politicians” as you claim, took leave of their masters and decided for them without asking. All that has happened is that they have finally got the “right up yours” response they would have had at the off, and would have heard any time they chose to listen, all of which they knew full well about but until now chose to ignore.
      'As you indicated, it is our own professionals who simply are not up to the job and we currently have no Churchills or Thatchers, or anyone remotely competent. Are you not aware they tried to have us drive on the right? They have been that stupid! Because the whole has been so mismanaged little devils have been making hay for their own little egos hence the diverse rumours, claims and counter-claims… where actually is the truth and sound management: nowhere, hence chaos and no one has a clue what they are doing or why!
     ' You dismiss this as “bafflegab”. What it’s called is irrelevant, it is the result of not asking then but now: or, to turn it round, what is the advantage of saying “yes”? No one has tried to sell the EU honestly and openly.'

Sunday 4th September 2016 [early evening]
Regrettably, it was not until after the Referendum that a long-term friend, now in Canada decided to communicate with me over Brexit. I will copy the debate, excluding personal asides but for some that may be meaningful to the reader, regarding the nature and background of the writer's general stance.
      My friend's argument arose out of: complimenting me on arguments [further down this page] for Brexit which he found persuasive while not himself being convinced; not understanding how, having so convincingly argued for Brexit, I then personally voting to remain! This is a record of prolonged, interchange over several weeks and while an attempt has been made to aid clarity, the following has not been prepared as it would have been were it intended for a book. Simply (but not consistently guaranteed) " " is my friend and ' ' is me.

      'I reached your point when you wanted to go into details of our flood experiences.  At this point I decided we were looking back too much and we really needed to move on. So, I have printed out the whole (yours and mine) and I am reviewing the collection.
      I cannot recall who it was who said that “sunbeams, scattered across a garden, were a delight to the eye but concentrated, burned insufferably: just as prose, lightly spread across a page, was a delight to the mind but presented with pithy succinctness, shocked the brain discomfortingly”.
     So, it is the light summer breeze I intend should waft my words across the page, not scathing pithiness but not avoiding (I hope) succinctness. The prime reason is that we are in a fluid situation across a diversity of fronts. Starting backwards, as it was your ending that prompted my volte-face, I am familiar with your quoted Guardian report. That was one of the articles that contributed to a growing awareness that we were really making an absolute hash of working with the EU in many areas.
     Your point, about professionalism and authority in government, countering the reality of public ignorance and lack of knowledge, is currently still being disproved.  As “Yes, Minister” will have told you, we have always relied upon the civil service to sort out government failures and your preferred elected “professionals” do make a right hash of things, either through civil service guidance or our political professionals misguiding the civil service! Managerial chaos had reigned across the various water boards and consequently many stories emerged in different coloured coats, apparently deriving from the same source but being excused by different entities at different stages in the overall structure.
      This all derives from your preferred elected professionals either being misguided or wilfully or inadvertently misguiding the civil service. The collective whole of our present mess is precisely because your preferred “delegated to the elected” doesn’t work and it will not work unless the public are kept fully involved, so that when it is necessary for them to stick in their six pennyworth, they do know what they are doing.
     The first response to the foregoing is that government must be simplistic and neither the EU nor our own country is remotely logical, nor does either acknowledge its fundamental purpose—the rendition of service to we who pay the bills. Both are filled with self-seeking individuals of whom few are concerned for other than their own self-importance or comfort in life.
      The professional view should have brought the referendum twenty years ago. Neither party did, for individual reasons, declaring neither professionally competent, “duty before self” (The Queen).
     Having brought the referendum, neither party had thought through the procedure following either result. “Out” had simply not been contemplated. Another failing of the professionals, who do not understand basic management procedures and you want the electorate, many actually are management professionals, to let such people decide for them?
     I assume you are maintaining a casual following of the Labour leadership débâcle?
     “Professional politicians” are just ordinary people, as are the electorate, why select just a few arbitrarily rather than let the whole give voice, especially when the “specialists” haven’t a clue themselves what to do!
      General elections are a single decision on a diversity of subjects of varying importance to different sectors of the electorate, countered by imbalanced constituencies, hence the need for proportional representation. To say this leads to indecisive government is to say you persist in denying truth, because that is the state of society which government is supposed to represent.
      To answer “how did the public decide what it did?” is simple. As can happen in any election, many seemingly unrelated matters enter the fray and at the present time society in this country is in a state of upheaval. Government is divorced from the people and the people sense this as being due to the EU, they are losing control of their lives. A different result might have come about if held twenty years ago. The delay was because time was needed to con (lull) the people into acceptance. Too much time elapsed and negativity became inbuilt into people’s attitudes. The professionals, preoccupied with EU admin lost sight of the electorate’s wishes.
      There was a general mood of “sod ’em all". An electorate, principally the economically poor, were determined to put in the boot. With careful handling May may be the person to bring in another Tory government, by being a Corbyn socialist with reason. We’ll see.
      Rather than follow 9 pages of my notes, I’ll address some personal matters and then waft lightly over the surface of the argument.
      Personally, I think there is some misunderstanding on your part, to which I attribute my own inadvertent misrepresentation. As I am sure you must have experienced in your own family (I am thinking of your intention, while at college, to write a family member’s biography but a family “no no” was the response) and later on did you not intend a history of the Sun [Sun Printers, Watford] but was again negated by family views while your father was chairman, before you finally produced your excellent volume?
      I have only just discovered that there were parallel “we don’t talk about that” traditions in separate aspects of my own family. I am increasingly open, as I am the last in the line and not only want to leave things “tidy” but also to leave some semblance that P Such Esq once was here! For diverse reasons Facebook brings an openness and selectively knocks down some of these walls. A cousin's daughter was choosing to open up to me, precisely because of my own openness. If I came across as proselytising, I apologise and take such criticism in the spirit of learning something about myself. It’s the hustings or the salesman in me! You have immediate relatives, I have none of that closeness so, I have to cover every aspect if matters are to be as simple as they should be.
      This evening I will be going down to a friend’s for light drinks and canapés in their garden (it’s in the 80s and should hold until tomorrow). It is effectively his Wake but as he will be paying for it he intends to be there! It is an idea that I intend to follow as part of my own tidying up process. He gave a little speech saying the wake idea was from a friend, who had been diagnosed as dying for the last twenty years, “so we might have another one!”
      I have diverse friends and do communicate diversely and widely which may be throwing you occasionally when I write.  Ah yes, another note of mine, you were writing a score to my libretto. I have yet to discover the libretto but might persevere. Tidying up bits of writing scattered diversely is another current project.
      I think that’s the personal stuff, oh, how’s the train set? I have just completed a two-year magazine run plus bits: how to lay out a small double O model village but it did not include the train and I nearly bought a complete discounted set when up north for something else. There has been a change in control mechanisms and so I resisted the temptation until I understood what was happening, technically.
      Back to government. “How would your mayoralty have panned out…” Like business one delegates, calls in specialists, calls public meetings or issues referenda. No problem in principle with all levels of government. The key is ensuring the public feels it is part of the government. With the referendum the government literally was out of touch. I’m wary of everything these days and it is basically on the management of representation/referendum I think we are debating rather than the fact of it.
   You are correct that both sides trounced a wad of indisciplined twaddle and no one was specifically responsible for either side’s statements, such was the Conservative party’s inability to organise or understand basic management. So much for your idea “Should have been handled by professionals (elected representatives)”. It was and that was what they were like!
     “Precedent works nicely in a reasonably unitary state.” Precisely, so you first ask the people if they no longer wish to be sovereignly independent, you don’t assume and then ask halfway down the road “did you want to go down here?” That’s professionals for you, not managing the cart with the eggs properly packed.
      'The UK is not being bloody-minded, it is the EU that has resolutely been determined to rule the hen house.
     'You are correct, on the UK floundering in trying to understand the electorate, because it has done nothing but play games with itself for the last ten years.
     'To say “Britain leaving the EU negates world co-operation” is not true. Co-operation is co-operation, you are arguing over format, not the principle.
     'Trident is only relevant in so far as it is a weight tipper in political arguments when other subjects which should be decided for themselves, are coloured in Trident’s light. Labour is split: some TUs have members employed on it so unions are divided.

'Very simply, why did people vote as they did? I’ll use bullets.

  • •  Dischantment with our own government across the parties and our own voting system.
  • •  Appalling general ignorance across the country and vertically.
  • •  Lack of voting generally or voting by precedent [turn out was high] so much inexperience
  • •  Appalling racial prejudice
  • •  Money spent on providing translations, which could have been spent on other social         needs [when we go abroad we individually pay for our translators].
  • •  Many people are multifaceted as a result of a changed work ethic so views are not basic
  •          traditional views but bbubutu
  • •  General feeling our own people have sold the country down the river and we’ve been
             shafted (your ‘professional elected representatives’ having failed). They wanted to
             kick at something and Corbyn refused to be openly seen as siding with the Tories, as
             well as I think he wants out anyway
  • •  The key questions have always been deliberately avoided:
      • Are you prepared to give up your borders and effectively absolute control         of your own country?
      • Are you prepared to give up the established basis of law for over one         thousand years for a different way of doing things???

'I think your “remain” reasons are views “from outside”. Perhaps I have given you a better idea of what is going on in the country.
      Supranational Governance was also managed by us, creating an Empire and then turning it into a Commonwealth. The structure is still there but devolved. The EU calls it ‘subsidiarity’, not the same thing and not acceptable. Why not the EU leave us that independence and sound management of our borders? Independence is what we gave our own sovereign nations.
    An aside, following a Facebook interchange causing me to check: Kent and South East (Home counties) which the EU refuses to acknowledge exists, it insists we are now East England! Total twaddle! Voted exit unquestionably."

PART 2
"Many thanks for your further comments.
     But you sidestepped the crucial question... the flooding, and the apparently spurious allegation that this was EU-caused!
     "Moving on" is a good way to duck the matter—you must still be a consummate politician—but mine was a serious question, because the real issue here is whether you've been hoodwinked like the rest of them. So I reiterate the question, did Monbiot's article contain any errors of fact? Can you produce any evidence that it did? Or did you, like so many others, succumb to lies and pub talk? "The Mood of the Moment" as you put it in an earlier note? I can re-send the link if you don't still have it."
     'As I previously wrote, you are now moving into picking over detail when the collective whole is history. Move on. I did not side-step but dealt with as relevant. Monbiot was writing after events. What led to the events, as happened elsewhere had a three-pronged cause.

     •  There is a pre-collective assumption that the EU is right for us but the public don’t want it so have to be duped into accepting it.

     •  The EU itself, perhaps influenced directly or indirectly by the above, slides matters through surreptitiously under some or other guise. More likely our own people disguising a simplicity from Brussels. For example the EU wants "Provided by EU money" but fails to honestly say "Provided by your taxation, enhanced by some other EU money".
 
     •  Perhaps because of the above, things change to meet a faraway EU purpose, which in the current general knowledge the populace makes no related sense, or is to them as a consequence, downright illogical.

     •  The moment matters changed from pure economics to politicalisation we have been waiting a referendum. It has arrived and now we all know where we are going. Mayhem results purely because our own politicians went ahead assuming not taking notice of the electorate was sensible, despite the electorate continually telling them they are wrong and we don’t want it.

     'That was the state on which Monbiot wrote: the result of collective mismanagement across the whole canvas, interspersed with individual influences of contrary opinions and opportunities to abuse positions for “legitimate” reasons. Tall stories have a basis of truth if much exaggerated.
      'It is arguable that our own press has betrayed us. For me, as you yourself wrote, my own web provided a good argument but you were not persuaded. More likely, you simply chose to take “an outsider’s view” rather than an “insider’s view".
      'I had a good relationship with the local leader of the LibDems, who would often whisper in my ear, “I know what you are trying to do but I wouldn’t go about it that way, why not talk with ?? at borough and tell him we’ve had words.” His attitude was, “Let the EU have everything and then we’ll ask back for what we reckon we can handle better”. That was his understanding of subsidiarity! He also said, “We don’t want a referendum until people have settled down to the whole EU idea then they will agree to it.”
      'That was what was going on all over the country!'
      "I was reading through your letter again, and am interested in one particular paragraph at the bottom of your first page, the paragraph beginning "Regarding the manufacturing north ... ".
      "You wrote ... "I have for long felt we were too south-east biased in everything. I have, within the last ten years travelled north quite a bit for weekends away (Hayley was doing concerts) and I made them 2/3 day stopovers and enjoyed travelling up and down. We are a divided country. It is noticeable that the most keen Out votes were in areas predominantly EU geared, indicating they spoke from EU “benefit” experience. The EU has always been deceitful. Investment has been specifically advertised as “from EU funds” not “supplemented with EU funds” or “your EU contributions coming back to you”. The whole construct of the EU has been to lie, cheat, manipulate, mislead BUT the British press is not the ideal organism it should be."
     "I'm wondering if you could substantiate what you say here about the EU, especially about its being deceitful: lies, cheating, manipulation and misleading? By substantiate, I mean provide evidence, not gossip, rumours, wacky stunts, urban myths, or pub talk!
      "Also, can you substantiate your statement that "the most keen Out votes were in areas predominantly EU geared, indicating that they spoke from EU 'benefit' experience"?"

'Hello Peter on Thursday morning 18th August 2016.
     ' I am horrified at the way time passes and I get less and less done. In my case that is my health irritations particularly but I am beginning to feel that an age factor is creeping in to that excuse!
      'O.K., My REPLY to your RELPY to my RELP!!! The typesetter obviously noted the typing error immediately while the writer has no choice but to proofread his own writing!
      'Delighted you are appreciative of Derek Fowlds. As I said to him when he autographed my copy of his autobiography A Part Worth Playing “Remembering Clunbury Press” he went to RADA, I went to printing college at which he had attended evening classes before being shunted off for National Service, from which he chose RADA, having been involved extensively in service theatricals! ...
     '... I did seriously attempt shorthand in my late teens (lecture notes etc) but, presumably for the same reason I never got on with languages despite a diverse interest, I never succeeded. I was greatly helped by my grandmother’s gift at 12 or 13 of a typewriter (with extended (18” I think) platen, enabling me to handle landscape foolscap, acquired from a local sales room) because she perceived I would make it as a writer. Not quite as either of us envisaged but acquiring the facility with a keyboard before getting to Watford was definitely an advantage and while letters to the press appeared in the local paper during my teens, it was not until I was at Staples and started writing for Printing World did anyone pay me.
      'I’m glad you found the reply interesting and worth your while replying. You are right, my thoughts flow faster than I can get them down, which is why I then went on to dictating on to tape. This was definitely encouraged by Charles being abroad and we each have some thirty years of taped letters between us. In my case a lot of dupes of my own to him. I’ve had a test transfer done to CD and am contemplating transcribing them all as I sort through the hubris of a life. A book may come of it, not for publication but for family archives, as I will not throw out without checking what I am throwing, as there is always the odd ode or poem to be found amongst the debris. I have already found two books I had completely forgotten I had started writing! I am contemplating rigging up to Word to transpose automatically. Any suggestions from your own typesetting experience?
      'Then there’s your music score for the opera we were writing. I trust I will uncover the libretto and would like to reconsider it, if only as a poem. I hope to produce two more poetic works before I go, from bits floating around. Many ideas and so little actually achieved!
      'Yes, my fluidity of thought paid me good stead when on the hustings and I transferred to marketing at the right time, they still had physical secretaries, so it was easy to say “a quick note please” and it was all done, more or less instantaneously. I remember that when I left I said to her “you never typed how I ended my letters” and she said “I nearly did, a couple of times and then I thought that would be the one occasion you signed without reading it and I would forget what I had done and it would go out, so I never did.” I used to finish dictating with “usual love and kisses” and she once said to me, “one of these days I’ll actually type that.”
     “I'm not such a rapid writer, and can't decipher some of what you're getting at, but I'll tackle a few of the issues where I think I do understand you.” 'O.K. The fault is probably mine through running several alternative versions through my head at the time I am thinking/writing/typing. I am hoping it is only age but I do find I can be in the middle of a sentence and I forget what the end was supposed to be. If it isn’t that causing me to muddle myself, then it could be more serious and that is medically worrying.'
     “I'm going to disregard Napoleon's stomach ... ” [This made me refer to Hart and you are correct, space before ellipsis, I usually run straight against the last quoted word]. “(did he use it as an excuse, or was it one of his biographers?)” 'Many of his biographers!'
      "I accept the principle of your argument regarding democracy and the complexity of particular subjects, as an argument.
     “How would your mayoralty have panned out if every issue had first to be presented to the public for its views?” 'All levels below central government operate on the same principle of central government. Council has specialist committees that report to council and council determines, including putting the matter out for public consultation, just as does central government but usually to specialist sections of society. What I think you are saying is that there are different ways of seeking public opinion other than through referenda. I agree the principle but disagree that they would be a better option.'
     “I put it to you that the job of elected representatives is to make some form of consensus out of often conflicting public demands, and act for the common good. Society must absolutely not control government, except through those who have been elected. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than referenda.”
     'No. Personal accountability is paramount and that includes the state in which society collectively dwells to be fit to make such decisions. Putting it bluntly: are we socialist, capitalist, autocratic, belligerent or benevolent dictator? Look at the world’s diversity of government and the states of mayhem they individually and collectively create for all. Why bother to make any effort anywhere is essentially the question? Nothing is new that we have not gone through in our own history. So why stop going forwards now?'
     “I say to you that the terms of the referendum were wrong.” "I agree but that is a different argument, specifically derived from elected representatives asking specialist opinion from those on whom the elected spend the electorate’s money. Why do you have a problem with that? It’s the result of doing what you say should be done!' “… it should never have been held anyway ...” 'Another different argument. Remember, this all started off on the basis that such a decision had been made and we were responding as a consequence.'
     “If I asked you today to tell me what the ramifications of the "leave" vote will be, you will have to admit' that you haven't the faintest idea. Am I right?"
      'No! You are right in that an extrapolation of probabilities should have been an integral part of the pre-referendum literature. You are right in that the EU failed to provide an exit strategy, because its authoritarian approach was likely to lead to a need to exit during its construction [basic management]. What Theresa May is doing now is what Cameron should have done before he called the referendum. When it was clear he could not even ask for what his gut feel already told him the British people would be expecting him to ask, that is when everything should have been brought to a head and argued in parliament prior to issuing a referendum.
      'This now brings in the balance of parties and parties’ control over their members and the likely conclusion of any parliamentary debate [as is now happening in the Labour party]. Precisely why referenda are a practical means of government.
      'You think this situation should have resulted in a general election and that would have solved the problem but you have already said "complex issues cannot be resolved simply… ". More over, the nature of politics is that there are usually other arguments, which may carry sufficient serious weight as to distract from the fundamental purpose. For example, were it to come to an election, we have a strong socialist movement in the public arena but Corbyn will not press the nuclear button. That directly conflicts with many who would vote Labour. They either do not vote or vote for someone else. Where’s the subject of why you are holding an election?'
     “The second thing I have to take issue with you on is that of "facts" ... what constitutes a fact, and whether it is important.
     “You say (page 3) : " ... the answer is that debate has not worked and matters will not change. Fact. Out is the simple consequence." Not only did you not vote that way—revealing that you entirely lack the courage of your convictions as expressed on your website—but your statement is wrong.'
      'You are confusing the personal issue with the objectivity of the argument. Totally different scenarios.'
     “Wrong, first, because you cannot know whether matters will change” 'which is in fact precisely why I made a personal decision in spite of the objective argument.' “… you are speculating, … .”
     'That has been the whole problem, speculation and no leadership or management control.' “… and have no basis for the statement.” 'The statement’s basis is the reality as is'.
     “And also wrong because Out is not a simple consequence, it is an unknowably complex consequence.” 'It is “simple” in that that is the manner in which the situation has been handled, leaving only the responses given.'
     “You cannot know, because nobody can, how negotiations will go, or whether Britain will be better off when the dust settles, or worse off. Emotionally you seem to hope for and expect an improvement, but you cannot know. You probably won't know even after everything is settled. There are too many variables.”
      'What you appear to be arguing about is the manner in which the referendum has been handled. I agree. This leads on to the whole structure and development of the EU from the beginning and it has been appallingly badly handled.  A situation requiring basic management, without the very reasons you are now saying, the referendum situation should never have happened. It should never have happened because the reason was not addressed earlier, as was the intention of The Referendum party! That looked at precisely this question and stood on the basis of getting a full debate in parliament, so a rational and comprehensive referendum could be put, the sole purpose of its being elected to government were it to be so. The arising of UKIP was the emotion of the public, not the rationale of the Referendum party. [There is a complex set of circumstances around all this, into which I do not intend to go.].'
     “I attack you on this because in the paragraph that starts 5 lines down on your page 5 you have placed the word "facts" in quotation marks several times, and say that mine are correct "in specific contexts." Well, no, they are correct. Period." 'No, they are as I have stated but this is where waters muddy, due to diverse news sources. Let’s keep to clear waters.'
     “They are either true or false. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me on this, but the presence of those quotation marks tends to leave me with the uncomfortable thought that you might consider my facts questionable, malleable, or not quite valid is some way. Let me reassure you that my facts are facts. You did, after all, congratulate me—although it feels a little like faint praise—on my fact checking!”
      'That last particularly encapsulates the problem. Perhaps I should have been more pedantic. What I meant was the context in which facts are chosen to be used and the inference which may be given to them in certain situations. In this, the British press, from which I presume you will have gained some of your facts, have been wilfully mischievous, abusing and misusing certain terms on the excuse ‘that’s the way the public use them,’ although some will excuse it as 'language interpretation'.'
     “I showed this other guy with whom I have also been interacting that he was basing his potential vote on incorrect information and showed him why. I genuinely thought that at some point he might produce a cogent, valid reason but he never did. I didn't attempt to assess the importance of any of his reasons.”       'I think this is where we have run into a misunderstanding. You are quite correct that he quoted as “fact” that which was arrant nonsense but it is fact that such nonsense was factually stated as fact over here by our (tabloid) press!'
     " Why did people vote as they did [leave]?" ' Very simply and I was going to give you a bullet list but I’ll take it generally.
     1. Dischantment with our own voting system; appalling general ignorance; lack in voting generally or voting by precedent and this time having to think [turn out was high]; appalling racial prejudice; austerity and paying money for translations and translating documentation which could have gone elsewhere.
     2. The entire EU project has been wilfully mishandled by both parties for party political reasons but knowing the public were against it and would vote “no” Blair said “no”to a referendum on behalf of the electorate, because of personal arrogance and the Conservatives avoided the argument completely, despite one of their own major financiers telling them it was urgent.
      'In short, the general national feeling is that the country and its people have been sold down the river. The moment politics entered the fray is precisely when the referendum should have been held or the EU project halted as from the UK’s further involvement. From that point all parties have varyingly and variously lied or misrepresented—so much for your idea of delegating practical government to the elected representatives, purportedly the "professional class"!
      'The key questions that all political leaders have wilfully refused to put to the British people are: are you prepared to give up control of your borders and effectively your country? Are you prepared to give up the fundamental principle of your rule of law by precedent of a thousand years’ establishment?
      The answer to both questions is a resounding “NO”! That is why the question was never asked until now. Asking now had nothing to do with the EU! It had to do with party politicking because of UKIP, which arose solely because the questions would not be asked! The public will out if government will not render service.'
     “… yourself should reveal such wishy-washy indecision.” 'As I previously wrote I am several people. As once mayor: the Queen’s direct representative and authority [subject to more senior such figures still being functional] within those boundaries; official public representative of the town and its council; a council representative of a particular area of the town; a private individual whose public opinions have found favour with a majority within that ward—a majority that was the second highest across the town of 13 wards!
      'In this issue (as was also the case at the above time) I have the history: of standing for parliament for the Referendum party; maintaining that public awareness and therefore wider than normal private individualism, while also being that private individual. In the second paragraph above I would find myself voting differently, dependent upon context, purpose and reason. Look at Corbyn’s voting record and reasons.'
     “… how and why well-educated Brits were going to vote, both turn out to be very determined not to be confused by the facts. And I will say that it occurs to me that if my two friends can't get their act together on this issue then my thesis that a referendum on this matter is not valid is proven, n'est-ce pas?”
      'No! you are comparing an apple with a pear!'
      “You seem to prefer denial …  with regard to the NHS funding issue.”
      'No! I am dealing with the issue covering all its charades.'  “You must by now know quite well that the amount of funding that could be redirected to the NHS upon Britain's exit from the EU was lied about.”
      'Wilfully misrepresented by diverse personages, none formally responsible for what they were saying. Again, a failure of Cameron to present a rational, comprehensive report and be clear in which capacity he was ever speaking. He was three entities [PM, leader of the Conservatives, leader of the 'Remain' brigade] (as I previously cited as town mayor) and could say three completely different things quite logically but in appropriate context! No one was ever too clear in which capacity he was ever speaking! This refers to your later paragraph when you write about misrepresentation on social welfare about the basis of individual “facts” in relation to gross numbers.'
     “Trident, however, is something else again. You mention world cooperation, but Britain's leaving the EU does not constitute world co-operation.” 'As I previously said I don’t agree, flexibility of individuality with common purpose is much better, especially if it means changing a country’s well-established understanding of the nature of law and it modus operandi.'
     “It ain't even regional co-operation. Britain kicked the white dominions in the teeth back in the 70s” 'No! That was the EU’s pig-headed arrogance. Would not take the Commonwealth with us or invite them to choose and our politically knowledgeable masters, as you would describe them, determined they would kow tow while we, the electorate, were never asked.'  “… and is now kicking Europe in the teeth …”. 'No we are not. Until now no one has asked us! Your “politically knowledgeable masters” created that situation through their "greater wisdom" I suppose is how you would justify them.'
     “Britain seems unable to co-operate … ” 'Utter rubbish. As I said earlier one of the reasons behind the rejection was that our “political masters” have wilfully separated themselves from the people they are supposed to be serving and the reason for that is the authoritarian arrogance of the EU. It insists on us adapting to their ridiculous ideas, instead of leaving us to get on with running things as usual. That is the key. The entire EU project has been mismanaged from the very beginning and the reason for that is because they did not get the fundamentals right, because we weren’t there to bring it down to earth with British common sense! It all goes back to the pig-headed arrogance of de Gaulle, who wilfully denied us, out of his own arrogance and that is what is the key EU fault, not an entity to render service but a mechanism for the personally arrogant to run roughshod over the electorate it is supposed to serve.' 
     “World co-operation as freely individual entities.” 'EU wants political domination over many without electoral representation—that is the way it is going.'
      [“No, what I was talking about is the hope for some form of long-term peace through, first, European co-operation. That is how the EU originally came into existence, its formation motivated very much by that hope, and that was the EU's prime purpose.”]' That was the intention but that is not the way it is actually expressing itself in the mechanical detail required to operate.'
     “You seem to place a high value on Trident in all this; I'm not so sure, but I'm not competent to judge that. What I have seen over the decades is a reduction in British military power, and a concomitant reduction in British military competence, and I can't help thinking that if Britain could co-operate with her friends she might exercise a great deal more influence, militarily and economically, than she will by trying to turn the clock back and going it alone.”
      'Britain is very co-operative with everyone, it is the EU that will not co-operate having been giving umpteenth opportunities. FAM: Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability. It is the EU that is obdurate, making religion's mistake of being dogmatic with staidness across diversity. The whole is simply irrational.'
     “The recently published Chilcot Report shows that Britain no longer has the competence to exercise military power either wisely or well. The statesmanship is lacking, and readiness was absent.”
     'Correct. That is due to periods of Blair and Miliband.'

PART 3

"I am disappointed in you!
     'I thank you for your compliment “Methinks you're still a politician...” which, in your perverse way, you intend as an insult. In that simplicity you illustrate your frustration at not being able to get your head round the simplicity of something, which is such anathema to you, you mentally block it out completely.

“-- You’re waffling” No, you are taking back roads instead of opening up on the full highway.
 
“-- You have no policy” I have no need of a policy; my need is simply to respond to those who choose to thrust a policy on me.
 
“-- You have no strategy” I have no need of a strategy, other than to recognise the simplicity and straight forwardness of life and to live it to the extent I wish

“-- You lack even a hint of statesmanship” That sounds like a terraced shout at the referee.

“-- You play the blame game” Sounds like I make accusations about which you feel uncomfortable because you know they bear a truth.

“-- You sidestep the evidence” (viz: your comments on flooding) only because the ‘evidence’ side-steps the original issue and I wish not to be pointlessly diverted.

“-- You speak out of both sides of your mouth, advocating one thing and doing the opposite” 'You completely misunderstand the nature of politics. As mayor I held an office, which has its own voice, not my own. As a town councillor I speak as an ‘authority’ for the town and as the town in communications with other outside bodies. As a ward councillor I speak for my ward at council but as council vote for the town overall when ward issues may over-ride or the larger town issue may over-ride. In all situations I am my own man as I stood for election. Continually there are conflicts and there is no hypocrisy at all in voting differently on the same subject dependent upon the circumstance. I am surprised you do not understand this.'
 
“-- You ignore the real issues” At best we hold different evaluations of the ‘real’ issues.

“-- You think parochially and disregard the country's best interests” 'You merely disagree with my opinion and are put out that you have no counter argument, so shout from the terrace at the ref.'

“-- You dismiss me as an "outsider" (as if I didn't have close relatives and friends in almost all parts of the country with whom I'm in constant contact)” 'I have done no such thing. I did not dismiss you, you chose to interpret that.  Ascribing to you an ‘outside’ view does not make you an ‘outsider’, you choose to so attribute to further divert attention from the nub.'

“Yes, Peter, you have the nerve to call me an "outsider" ! So now a deeply entrenched xenophobia in Britain has come close to peaking with Brexit, and "outsider" has come to mean immigrant, foreigner, Gypsies (driving Aston Martins of course), and now people like me, whose families (sons, daughters, brothers, sisters etc) still live in the UK and are personally visited quite frequently, by means of which we "outsiders" keep in touch and have, or acquire, political opinions. Sometimes it takes an outsider, free of the urban myths, the pub talk, and the inward-looking and largely baseless resentment that comes from it, to see things clearly. Sometimes it takes an outsider to take the trouble to explore the facts before forming an opinion. I have talked to just about equal numbers of leavers and remainers, and I can assure you that remainers are not outsiders. And of course Britain itself is now -- through Brexit -- going to become an outsider in Europe, so perhaps it isn't stretching things much to say that you'll soon all be outsiders!”

'Pure anguish of a child losing his favourite toy. Yes, some modern gypsies do drive expensive cars and caravans and some are moving into houses while others persist with their cultural heritage [http://www.applebyfair.org/ http://travellerstimes.org.uk/Events.aspx/].
     ' Inevitably there is a cross-mix of vibrant living cultures, which will be uncovered through wide travelling amongst such entities of urban myths, the pub talk, and the inward-looking and largely baseless resentment that comes from it; to see things clearly, as there are other more widely informed segments of society, providing balance and counter-experience and counter-argument.

'You persist with this abuse of language to imply what has never been stated.  At no time has Brexit ever meant or implied “outside Europe”. The EU is a completely different entity to Europe. The former is political the latter geographical. The EU isolates itself from the rest of the world whilst the UK is without question globally orientated. It is the EU that wilfully prevents the UK’s free interaction globally. It was not the UK that treated the Commonwealth badly, that was the EU refusing to accept reality and unfortunately our ‘professionals’ (which you think should be running us) allowed such stupidities to happen.
 
“The issues are much bigger…” 'Correct, that is why it is so important to make these decisions before it is too late. On the same principle that is why the UK government is looking to return power to the municipalities because national, let alone international government of the microcosm, does not work. It simply is not being properly managed.

'International and global concepts need to be managed through the United Nations, which needs an almighty kick up its bum. It has lost its effectiveness due to deviation to self-appointed little bureaucrats mirror-gazing their dreams instead of waking up to reality and seeking to render service to reality, the world as it actually is.

“Both Canada and Britain are indeed "ruled" by Washington…” 'Wrong again. Big money and global corporate entities rule, or attempt to rule everyone. Why is Trump a viable possibility? Because the ‘professionals’, who you think should be ruling, have disjointed themselves from the electorate and are set on serving their own egos, rather than rendering service to the people who pay their costs. Democracy is beginning to break down due to vested monetary issues divorced from social realities.

“Even Washington wanted Britain to remain in the EU, a surprising abrogation of self-interest on Washington's part.” 'For what reason? Because the coat rail still held the hanger which otherwise might be too free in voicing its own opinion?
      “Would we get the same from Beijing or Moscow?” 'To question this is to counter your global argument. They are part of the world and globally we have to work with them. Being a leashed poodle to America’s eagle is not the same as being the independently bloody-minded British bulldog running free.
     “If the British can't get their act together, and quickly, the country won't survive…” 'The ‘professionals’ who you believe should be running us do not understand management; otherwise Cameron would have already prepared two paths, one for each option. The Conservative party is not capable of basic management so he didn’t, that’s what comes of letting ‘professionals’ run things!
     “…but going it alone ain't the solution…” 'We won’t be, we’ll be working independently with the whole world while the EU persists in wrapping up its own little opinion, divorced from the rest of the world’s views.'
     “… and the "commonwealth" is a dead duck: Britain's past treatment of it guarantees that.” 'Britain’s past treatment arose from the EU’s wilful refusal to accept reality and our "professionals’’ refused to be realistic and forward thinking.

“I'm still convinced that you're a good fellow…” 'Thank you, two Americans have just been so kind as to say so, accepting my postings on Facebook. “… who's having a bad day over this Brexit thing.”
      Were we to vote again I would be voting Brexit not ‘remain,’ as I did this time because I vaguely thought, given a chance, the EU would be rational but it is obvious this will now never happen.

'Your argument for ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ is the same as your argument about biochemistry and spirit. You have a mindset that would so throw your thinking that you cannot accept the danger of seeing what you refuse to acknowledge as existing and therefore you regard any debate as invalid in principle.'

“Regarding the Monbiot article I sent you, which clearly placed the blame for the flooding on poor stewardship and on a corrupt UK minister and her relationship with the NFU, can you tell me what it was in that article that was wrong?”

'There was nothing wrong with the Monbiot article in principle in so far as I am aware of these things, such knowledge emanating from J__ G____ who lives in the southwest area and close to one of the problems, through whom I am personally vaguely aware indirectly and directly through personal visiting.

'As I wrote at the time, the blame arises through administrative confusion/wilful manipulation deriving from EU interference in the administrative structure generally at a high level, before the event.

Saturday 16th July 2016 [early evening]
DITHERING AND GETTING IT WRONG WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF RUNNING THE LATE BRITISH EMPIRE: IT REMAINS OUR GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT

It has emerged that as recently as May, David Davis had believed it would be possible for Britain to negotiate trade deals directly with each EU member state, as opposed to the reality, which is that the member states are only permitted to negotiate as a bloc, which was precisely why many of the leavers wanted to leave! Twit!
      The issue, raised in The Guardian article today is that this referendum should have been presented twenty years ago. The Tories knew it and did nothing. Blair knew it and did nothing but charge into Iraq! The moment the EU decided its diktat over-ruled our legal system was the moment we should have had all the facts of future intentions presented to the British electorate. Both political parties knew it and failed us. From the very first the Liberal/Democrats have been most keen the EU should always run us, primarily because they knew they were not up to it and they didn't want either of the other two parties to do it at all, let alone more successfully, as they probably would have done. http://www.petersuch.com/EU_IN_OUT.html

Saturday 25th June 2016 [early after-noon]
HAVING DITHERED FOR FORTY ODD YEARS THE EU SUDDENLY BELIEVES IN ACTION

Probably because circumstances are not directly under its authoritarian control it is now panicking: indicative of unreliability in an emergency, such as a Russian aggressive act.
      The impression one gains is that we are in a new era of Machiavellian politics. Is this solely by chance, or is it deliberately machinated by unknown forces, "those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad"?  Forty odd years ago the EU made it quite clear the Brits were not wanted. Foolishly we persisted, losing our free and open relationships with not only our Commonwealth but the rest of the world outside the EU.
      Then our representatives failed to ask us if we wanted the changed arrangements out of Lisbon, making trade arrangements a matter of politics. The Conservative party was made aware by one of its major financial donors, Sir James Goldsmith, that a referendum was needed, hence his referendum party, because the Conservative party would not accept the need. Twenty years ago the present mayhem might well not have resulted. We might have achieved a different result.
     Instead, both parties dither for twenty years. Finally, we get a referendum from the very party that has been refusing to deliver one, knowing full well it had been necessary for the last twenty years.
     The present shock is brought about possibly because this government may have manipulated their expense returns, inveigling itself into a place that was not honestly theirs. We have yet to learn. This government toadied to the money-grubbers rather than realising its social responsibilities, causing a disadvantaged people to feel aggrieved, although the financial crisis was brought about by an irresponsible Labour government that did not understand that social benefits can only be afforded according to financial success. The EU does not understand this either.
     In the Labour party, we have a party that moved with the times, through importing fancy university boys to ride roughshod over the dis-chanted members and used them as a platform for their own egos. So we charged into Iraq, because an American president assured us it was necessary and when we got there we found that it wasn't necessary, hence our current Middle East problems and arguably our present immigration problems.
     The Labour party finally gets round to voting in a leader clearly approved of by the members but he is faced with a Parliamentary party unrepresentative of the members because of the previous university toffs. I suspect Corbyn would have gone for Brexit but, like me, may have wanted Brexit but would have given a Remain a last opportunity for the EU to sort its house out. He admitted being only three-quarters for Remain. So, a Labour leader, faced with a Parliamentary party that doesn't want him but wanted by the members, who obviously know what they are doing. He finds his preferred option (my presumption) is chosen by the electorate, giving him a platform to charge in, very much in leadership vogue, while the government is leaderless and the EU is waking up to being decisive! Interesting. I feel rejuvenated. These are indeed exciting times and I wish I were younger. Why on earth is modern youth complaining? I admit to being in my fifties before I kicked over the traces but even then I ended up as mayor of my own home town. Get stuck in guys.

Friday 24th June 2016 [early morning]
DECISION MADE SO LETS GET ON WITH PROPER GOVERNANCE

Well, it always was a difficult decision and I, who for twenty years have been demanding a referendum now know where we stand, as we should have known twenty years ago. The Conservative party can be extraordinarily slow in knowing where it is going. Labour has rarely known where it is going while the LiberalDemocratics have always been keen for the rest of the world to walk all over us.
     First priority is preparation for 2020 vote, which means a referendum on the options for proportional representation and the constitution of the Lords which is not so urgent.

Tuesday 21st June 2016 [late evening]
DEADLINE: THE GREAT TV DEBATE and the answer is "STRATEGY"!

So, a review or a conclusion? My personal view as an individual is OUT! However, I also have to bear in mind my professional status as a chartered manager. We have to make a decision on insufficiency of evidence: both sides have failed to present a cool, calm, objective evaluation as has, most particularly, this government. What is clear, as I have continually reiterated, is that Creation is a state of change through time. This moment, on Thursday, is but one moment in eternity. I listen to religious views but choose a spiritual universality. My personal view is the effect the opportunity of our presence has on events in each time frame we experience. Therefore, I see this debate, not in the moment but in the context of the wider time frame. Staying in, we can try and reform from within and give further chance to those disinclined to "wake up" to change their attitudes.
      I have previously compared society to a glacier, different parts move at different rates, causing stresses and tensions, with the potential for serious fractures. So it is with society and if we are to expect the strong to support the weak then our historically gained superiority in handling divisions in society should stay our hand and show more patience for those with less understanding of the fluidity diversity demands. Therefore, the mature spiritual mind says "REMAIN".
     If we are to criticise others, we must first ensure our own house is tidy and it isn't. Our own political leaders have let us down. Our own parliament does not have proportional representation. I do not believe the Lords should be elected but its constitution needs to be changed. Cameron, get parliament to propose a referendum on both matters in time for 2020. Then, in sorting ourselves out we have cause to  be more firm than we have been in the EU.  All parties have failed us in the EU. Blair gave back some of Thatcher's gains and in Maastricht and Lisbon our people were too accommodating. There has clearly been a major failing in our representatives, they simply have not been up to the stature to which we have become accustomed in foreign affairs.
     The EU requires the removal of the EU parliament and a return to individual parliaments determining new legislation, it is there, involving the local "in the community" representatives where proper EU management may best be determined. For REMAIN, then determine leave if they really will not adapt to Life's basic requirements of FAM: Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability.

Monday  20th June 2016 [evening]
DEADLINE: THE MORAL DILEMMA
have
David Cameron has failed the country badly. Up to the point the government was no longer allowed to interact on the debate, I was never sure whether he was PM or simply leader of the Conservative party. As PM he should have been putting a balanced government position, hence my attempts here. I had been debating scanning the various articles in The Economist, which publishes with a greater authority than my opinion. Now, in the last days it does just that HERE.
     These articles raise a serious question, to what extent have our own politicals failed us and/or knowingly or ignorantly, have led us into the arms of shrewd foreigners who took us all for a ride? Where, then, lies our (the electorate's) culpability? On emotive terms I am influenced by the death of Jo Cox. The  more one learns of her the more one realises what a very wonderful person she was and how marvellously suitable she was at being an MP. Few MPs can match her standard and energy and it is not unreasonable to consider she could have been a Prime Minister and Labour's first female leader.
     As the table below indicates, I have been sharing my thoughts as they accumulated and now draw my thinking to a conclusion, which momentarily deserts me. If the EU had the attitude of Jan Cox, or were our parliament kitted out with many more Jan Cox's, we would not be having this referendum and I am emotively inclined to "Remain", for that was her belief. Certainly, many in and pro EU, accept that the EU is in need of major reform but it will not reform.
     It is like dealing with a recalcitrant child: to what extent can patience allow class disruption to the detriment of the other children? There comes a time when removal is the only answer. That is where we are now.
     What is the motivation for recalcitrance? Many are the potential motivators but money is the old religious snake in the grass, in this context. Society is people, for which purpose government is their management mechanism. What has money to do with that? If that question seems surprising then it shows how de-structured society has become. Society existed before barter. Accepting money now exists, where lies reliability? There is none. The state of stocks, shares and currencies are continually fluctuating... for what reason? The ego-eccentricity of power. Power by those who have divorced themselves from society. Is society the new Rome, while the EU fiddles with labour-inflated bureaucracies of chiefs and no indians, all getting in the way of anyone with the nous to actually do something practical?
     Every parent, who truly loves their child, restrains to the last from firm discipline but if the child will not respond... Jo Cox was clearly a loving and patient Mummy but also a firm and strong woman. Idealistic dreams have been shattered many times upon the altar of reality and in understanding other people's attempts at making the world a better place, I would have been unquestionably a follower but not in this matter. Someone, somewhere has got to have what it takes to stand firm and say "so far and no further." The EU has had its chance and has blown it.

BALANCING THE ARGUMENT

THE REALITY
We cannot see our decision in isolation. Our responsibilities to others, first to ourselves: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Gibraltar and perhaps even Wales. Then there is the wider world... and eternity. The UK has always been globally orientated, dealing in various degrees of equitability with diverse interests upon a world canvas. Where is the rationality in planing down to a common universality, a natural diversity of colourful character?
Society: people, or monetary interests divorced from social realities and responsibillities? Are EU claims for social accountability for people, or for commerce? What has the EU actually given our workers that they could not have gained for themselves, had the Labour party presented their needs in a rational manner for the overall electorate to accept? NOTHING!
Our responsibilities to others: second, to our own and other peoples' past, who gave their lives for the freedoms we seem to so easily give away to the EU? We may treat them as we treat ourselves, as being fairly representative. I merely mention in passing.
Our responsibilities to others: there is the global effect upon the fundamental principles affecting all people's hopes and aspirations, because they themselves follow the "right thing to do", especially the weak and vulnerable. It is as I write this that I have cause to publish in my Weekly Commentary.

"TRIBUTES TO JO COX
Regretfully, I did not cross over channels early enough to know if others had already been as irresponsible as Stephen Kinnock. He tried to wrap his political argument into his eulogy. Would Jo have done that? She had a clear sense of what was right and I am inclined to think not. The reason for her death is not yet confirmed, nor has the mental stability of the man committing the act been confirmed. The political argument requires no emotion from either side, it simply requires unemotional dispassionate assessment of the argument. This was neither the time nor the place for political argument. He sullied the proceedings."

Therein, I reverse my proclivity to be emotionally swayed to changing my opinion. I was prepared to consider staying in but if we are not to lead then who is going to lead? Once more, it is our own politicians that have let us down and brought us to the present mess. They did not stand firm for ours and wider interests, they sacrificed the longer view for the small change of the short-term view. For too long, that has been our successive, modern governments' view, never playing in the long grass for the greater stakes. We must out. Stop the world, not to get off but to stand up and be counted.
 
 
 
Government is to society what the spade is to the gardener. They are the tools for digging through the dross to reach the fertile soil in which they may render the service for which they were made. It is the gardener and society who are in charge, no one else and it is they who play the tune with the full orchestra: a voluntary grouping of individuals bonded by a common cause according to the variations, the themes of Life. Is the EU the servant it must be, to render the service for which it is seemingly overly paid? One might continue the question, is the UK parliament the servant that it too must be?
      NO! It requires proportional representation, which we can sort out in our own time but pointless if we allow the EU to walk all over us. We also need to sort out the whole nature of the parliamentary system of representation. Again, a foolhardy exercise, if we do not grab this fundamental root at the field of dandelions about to mire our centuries of growth, careful ground preparation and painstaking nurturing, unequivocally plucking it out and casting it on to the bonfire of vanities that the EU represents.
Whether or not those of influence at the time should have known better, been aware, or did wilfully pervert their public office, what we, the people, knowingly entered was a trading arrangement that has got out of hand. It is our own people (among them Tony Blair and Miliband (the then Labour party, purportedly but not actually representing the party members, any more than does the present Parliamentary Labour party)) who reneged our trust and gave back to the EU what Thatcher had demanded the EU return to us and had obtained back from them!
     The EU has achieved absolutely nothing that we could not have achieved for ourselves. Predominantly, it is the Labour party, sustained by the Tories that failed to offer us these same opportunities in their manifestos, or did so in a manner that was unacceptable. In this, the Labour party still has not settled the outstanding question. It has failed to recognise the reality of its membership and has chosen to listen to the trades unions, for monetary reasons, instead of the sense of their argument and adapting it to a wider electorate. As a result, the Labour party ended up with the wrong brother running them and consequently were then themselves run out of office.
     The lesson to be learned is that money grubbers are entirely self-centred and see not their solo quests in the context of the collective whole. That applies to all of us. The progressives, going forward, seeking to better ourselves and not noticing the multitudes we leave behind. This is the time we render our accounts.
The EU is our immediate question, for these last few days. IN, or OUT. That is NOT the question! The question is a management question: which is the most meaningful way in which we, who have the money and resource, can best guide the world to recognise the most of its finite resources, with least damage to its future opportunities and survival of its present Life forms?
     We know as fact, not interpretation of facts, that Life is a continually changing commodity. Where then lies rationality of rigid conformity across continually changing diversity? Does the EU provide us with FAM? Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability. If not, how relevant is its construct for tomorrow when it clearly is not coping with today?
The REMAIN brigade are concerned the EXIT brigade do not declare their expected future, having left. Neither does the REMAIN! Because they have no idea where the EU is going to either, other than downhill! However pleasant, the recalcitrant child is the problem, it is how to be effective in dealing with it that is the problem.
PEOPLE, PERSONALITIES, PARTIES: all completely irrelevant, they have their own agendas. Surely government objectivity? No such thing. Cameron has been confused from the start as to whether he is speaking as Prime Minister or as a political party leader. Can we be sure the Civil Service is not equally confused? The only true foundation is to start from first principles, as outlined above.
24th June WHAT HAPPENS?
 
Essential Essence of the Debate
Do we relinquish control over our own country, for which two past generations sacrificed not only their own lives but also blighted their families' futures, to save our inheritance; not only the inheritance of our own countrymen but also the citizens of Commonwealth countries; or do we regain what was given up by Labour politicians, deliberately choosing not to ask us, because they were prejudiced in their view and feared we would give a rational answer, inevitably contrary to theirs? Was their view the union-based short-sightedness that encouraged the miners' failure to see that conservation demanded renouncing coal.
Who should vote? Why is our administration so incompetent it is believed over 3,000 people have been given a vote to which they are not entitled?
Why the preoccupation with youth voters, particularly on the REMAIN side, rather than concern for all people to make the effort? It is an admission of our educational failures. Youth are not well prepared with a world historical view and lack Life experiences, so are easily manipulable, so it is believed, so that much can be attributed to the EU which is in fact perfectly achievable, if the people wanted, by the UK parliament which the EU heavyweight machine wants to ultimately remove, or render inconsequential.
Honest integrity does not emanate from the EU. That which is crucial is not open to public debate and scrutiny. Remember, most promotion relies upon the advertiser and marketeer's guiles, not upon display of simple objective facts. EU promotion never tells you how much is EU money in a project, in addition to our own money coming back to us, which we had already put into the EU.
Are we voting for ourselves: being selfish, perhaps arrogant, or are we seriously conscious of the wider effect of our decision on other nation states and therefore knowingly accepting our accountability for the consequences? Are we sacrificing our best interests for the common good, or foolishly abandoning our sense of responsibility from vast experience by failing to grasp the nettle and bear the sting?
     Leadership; foolish sacrifice, or hard-headed realism and accepting responsibility? Being accountable to our rationally viewed place in the world? The parent leads the child with experience but society is like a glacier in which different parts move at different rates and not necessarily according to their age.
 
 
ISSUE IN/OUT CONCLUSION
Validity for holding referendum. See Saturday 7th May
N/A
Unquestionable. The starting point is that we agreed to a trading relationship. At no time has anyone asked us "do we want political intrusion requiring a sacrificing of our direct representaton and power in our government?"
     

N/A
 
A lifetime's decision, but what is life? Religion has a view that Creation was a "one-off", in defiance of everyday knowledge that tells us life is a state of continual change. So why does secular EU make Christian religion's mistake of firming universal rules across a world of diversity, in deliberate opposition to the Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability needed to give the whole conformity? The EU is irrational.
N/A
Are concepts of God rational? The fact that many of 'His'(?) adherents (mostly men) defer to irrational concepts does not decry ideas about God but declaim His proponents' failings. They are the same prophets, a few generations on, using the secular concept to promote their own egoistical declarations, which is all that priests have ever been. Why promote further their proven errors?
Working with others.
To what extent does anyone control anyone? We have been outvoted forty times at EU crucial debates. Membership gained us no advantage but forced us to accept being imposed upon. Outside, we may not get our way but we do have our preferred way of handling the outcome, whatever circumstances are thrust upon us and no one knows the future but, we do know that the future requires flexibility of response, not rigidity.
OUT
Always keep all options open. Life is a confirmation that all can and may change and almost certainly unpredictably. Remember that since Maggie Thatcher, who changed her views as circumstances changed, it is our own people who have bowed to the EU instead of standing up to it, as she did. Our own directly elected people brought us to where we are, in serious doubt of the EU's competence. The only way to undo that damage is to leave, our own people forcing that decision.
The sheer practicality of numbers. How can any government manage the society for which it is responsible without having the facts but the EU deliberately denies us gathering the facts on immigration necessary to ensure sufficiency of schools and medical facilities? We need to know who is coming in with whom and with what potential future liabilities (children, other family) so as to assess school places etc.. Buildings take awhile to construct and be fitted into the wider gamut of local society, with all the related social requirements: health and NHS demands, transport, housing. Our own government agreed we could not hold the doors open for the Commonwealth, so where is the logic in bowing to the EU's demand that we let any EU citizen in, which potential numbers are even greater? It simply is not rational.
OUT
Unbalanced social needs are less controllable inside the EU: we need an Australian style grading, border and law control to ensure eviction. EU law is irrational and irresponsible directly because of the EU.
Is it logical the largest of all 'modern' European empire builders should renounce the rest of the world? We are part of the world and migration is a world problem not an EU one. Leaving the EU will not solve the migrant problem, nor address the depleting world resources and the vacuousness of those who would presume to overthrow us? We have global experience in this which the EU does not and wilfully shuts out the rest of the world. We are "fair play" and open to all, especially the rest of the world. The EU is not like that.

The EU is failing to maintain its borders effectively and to what extent do we owe to others, our own development? At the same time, our own government believes in devolution to the counties and newly formed city states, how come it supports loss of our ID into an amorphous sludge of incoherent indecisiveness called the EU? It is irrational.

Are we, as with Germany, needing immigrant labour? Or are we failing to educate and failing to invest in equipment rather than cheap labour?
IN/OUT
 
THE BUDGET: Based on the assumption of staying in a reformed EU but the EU has made it clear it has no wish nor intention to reform, so Osborne torpedoes his own argument! Planning for the future "holding a steady course ahead". World slowing. Raises questions "is commercial growth ever necessary?" When are we replete? More essentially, Osborne is effectively saying the economy is unbalanced, a good time therefore to make major change and see the problems as a collective whole in an organised manner, accepting accountability for the collective whole. The "remain" crowd seem mainly concerned with big money and self-monetary interests. We cannot go on consuming. We must rationalise our acquired perceptions with the reality that this is a finite globe. Already we are on the verge of losing the gains our medicines have given us, are we soon to lose the very sustenance this globe has given us? This involves us all working to a common course, not creating self-interested enclaves.
OUT
 
Perversely sound financial management is the time to take risk and leave, if Osborne is remotely sound financially? It is a socially unbalanced budget, something for those who have something but for those still trying? Social self-interest or fear may determine an IN vote.    
Devolution ensure the principle throughout.
OUT
 
Osborne admits the future is a dangerous cocktail, clearly the time to make major decisions for the next generation, precisely. Should the next generation be denied the freedoms of government we enjoyed and for which our parents risked and gave their lives? Where is our duty to their sacrifices?
OUT
 
Sticking to his plan! So is the EU, sticking to its airy fairy ideas of life being other than it actually is?
OUT
Persistence is not necessarily a virtue, it can be a statement of egoistical arrogance, or damned fool stupidity!
BEING PHILOSOPHICAL: Why not? The EU believes in figments of imagination. Our politics start with the House of Lords: spiritual and temporal, which last includes the law lords.

Modern politics in the Commons would have: capitalist; socialist; the church. All three are pragmatists dealing with materialism. In the Christian church, "the spirit was made flesh and it is the flesh that ascended into heaven". Arguably, then, for Christians, there is no dividing line between spirit and flesh!

Perhaps it is my age that recognises the closeness of that "other place". All three believe in sharing/distribution of wealth but argue over the economic mechanism. Both mechanisms can chalk up success and failure but both mechanisms deny the Christian church that is their source.

The oneness of Creation must be both spiritual and material and therefore the imbalance of the haves and the have nots, however defined, is a basic injustice and any injustice is an affront to all. There is no difference in principle between the Daesh nut cakes and the Chancellor's responsibility to budget accordingly. His ego has to be justified in the historical light of his office. It is that office that is a mechanism for continually maintaining social justice.

Arguably, the difference between the EU and the UK is the balance of capitalism and socialism. The EU, fundamentally flawed at its foundations with irrational ideas and happy simply to charge out the costs, while the UK, currently basically sound but failing in fair play to all.
   
FUNDAMENTAL BASICS: The failure of the EU to understand women's needs in matters sanitary declares its failure to understand social requirements, raising the question, is it really socialist?
OUT
There is no question that the EU must understand its place in society as the servant of us, the people. who pay its costs. There is no question OUT OUT OUT, it clearly will not be brought to heel.
"I adhere to my course" Just what the EU did when Cameron gave them a chance to show they could change, they chose not to do so.
OUT
 
     
     

 

 

Wednesday 15th June 2016 [after-noon]
LOOKING AHEAD

Today, PMQ was a blatant sell, sell, sell "remain", a clear indication of the government panic that the British electorate will not be bullied and if it will not do as it is told, it will be its fault. The fault lies entirely with both parties, who have wilfully mismanaged the nature of government for too long.  We do not have proportional representation—so, we need a referendum on those options IN TIME TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE 2020 election. I, personally, am not supportive of an elected Lords but the constitution of that house does need to be reformed.
     On the EU question, so far, everything has been VIth form debating and I think the VIth form would have conducted themselves better. Berkhamsted, of course, has turned out a damned good, well balanced and well managed debate which, due to the initiative of the town's own TV company we can share more widely.
     Background. I know both participants personally. David Gauke (Conservative MP for South West Herts) is a Treasury minister. He is of that echelon of MPs unquestionably worthy of higher office and that may be relevant to his stance. Osborne, purportedly, seeks to replace David Cameron. That means the Chancellor of the Exchequer post would become vacant. Gauke could follow through, ultimately to PM. Has he chosen his side, influenced by his personal possible career move?
      This question must be asked of all those who support, or oppose, the government position. It applies to Boris and also Corbyn. Is Corbyn trying to balance his personal views with his need to keep control of a parliamentary party that does not represent him or those members who voted for him? Is it really valid to think he might make the Labour party electable and yet decline to be PM?
     Sidney Perrera is more interesting. I would have expected him to be for Remain but he is for Brexit. He is a successful businessman of many years' experience, travelling extensively around Europe, fluent in four continental languages. Presenting for Remain. Presenting for Leave.
     It was an interesting meeting at the highest standards to which Berkhamsted is accustomed to presenting across the diversity of its various communities. I am indeed lucky to have been born into and to have lived my life in such a town.

Wednesday 8th June 2016 [morning]
IS SOCIETY FALLING DOWN? [This blog is also available on
The Weekly Commentary]
The Civil Service cannot maintain a web site! At the crucial moment, the web site for registering for voting crashes. This happened a year or two ago with the HMRC web site, so they have experience and should have anticipated. Root cause? Individual failure: we are all to blame.
     Parents have failed in ensuring their children are aware of their inherent responsibility to register as soon as they reach the eligible age. Have those parents also failed to instil regular awareness through their own voting habits?
     Has our education system failed in not providing sufficient Civics classes, as I had in the VIth form? Does our education fail to provide sufficient British history?
     It is purported that the government feels those disadvantaged would have voted its way, rather than vote for "LEAVE". Were that a valid argument why is the referendum so late in the first place? Nearly twenty years ago, a largely past and present Tory party membership gathered a movement for a referendum party, to force the Tories to wake up. to their responsibilities. I was part of that and the Tory party refused to wake up until now, nearly twenty years too late!
     What no one appears to be taking into account is that extending the period means that those who might have registered may not and those who would not have registered may now do so. Consequently what ever result transpires is sullied by doubt!

Tuesday 7th June 2016 [evening]
COMING INTO REALITY!

Cameron now wants us to take seriously the expert specialists. These will doubtless be the people who advised that the Euro would be a success. The same experts who gave us ERM, which was more rational for us to leave, having followed their advice to be "in", at enormous cost. Does Cameron really know what he is talking about?

24th June WHAT HAPPENS?
Run up to the General Election 2020! Because it is the way the parties behave from that date on that will determine their chances for government in 2020. If Brexit win the debate, by what ever margin, a very bright future of all options being open lies before us.
     First, Brexit has to be negotiated with the EU and being the mismanaged entity it is it probably has not time-tabled such an eventuality. Will Cameron negotiate alone or recognise this is a national situation, parliament is the national forum and will Labour be involved? Invited or otherwise, will Labour have the wit to force proportional representation and other moves for renewal of our parliamentary system or blow its opportunity? This will be the first real test of Corbyn's leadership as a serious trial as to his potential as PM. 
      At the same time, due legal process may declare a need for bye-elections... or another general election. Let us look back to what I have said before. The secular EU, in its irrational centralised diktat of conformity across diversity has made the same mistake religion has made, ignored the reality of Creation and Life, that it is a state of continual change over time. FAM, Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability is what is required, not the EU's attitude of conformity across all diversity, any more than it was rational for religion to hold such a view.
     Even today, there may still be a place for God in a more rational and updated form. There may have been little evils working their magic to give us the government we have and might not have had had it not been for their machinations. Consequently, we had a referendum which we might not have had. Perhaps we will be presented with a vast array of opportunities to carve the future in ways that were never ever dreamed by anyone. At this present moment of thinking, it would seem that a Brexit win, by what ever margin is the most advantageous. A whole new world of opportunities should open up before us. Not just for the UK but for the EU as well and the whole world.

Wednesday 1st June 2016 [late evening]
DEALING WITH FACTS
The other Sunday Blair was on Andrew Marr blathering in panic and avoiding all that is relevant to divert attention from the main issues. He really is a complete disaster.  I opened my Weekly Commentary this morning with the heading "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions! and there is no question that responsibility lies entirely with ourselves.
     We are involved, whether we like it or not and have no choice but to recognise our responsibilities and give an account of ourselves. The EU question is merely one of many, for all of society is in a state of flux and that is a part answer to the EU question. Life, the future, today is a state of continual change. Why then? Where is the logic, in making rigid rules across the diversity of continually changing living reality? FAM: Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability are the only constants and certainties of any future.
      Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say frequently to Watson, "You have seen but you have not observed." Like a policeman, the responsibility of management is to see, to observe and having observed, to deduce. Having deduced, one perceives, interprets and prepares. Such is the responsibility of government and the laws it proposes to parliament, devolved from its open-minded manifesto of intent, prior to election.   Too often a manifesto is no more than dreams for a tomorrow a political party hopes will be its to control. Rarely are manifestos published in the context of a world view. In that, our politicians have proven too insular in their thinking for too long.
     Today, I start my review of where my thoughts, in my table of balance over the previous few months, have led me—and I am still working it out! I start under "First Principles"

Saturday 28th May 2016 [after-noon]
THE FINAL STRAIGHT
So, government departments are now shut down on the EU issue.  Presumably that means the PM's office, so from now on we know for a fact from which position Cameron speaks: as a private person and as leader of the Conservative party. That helps to sort out the mixed messages of the past several weeks in which Cameron has delivered nothing but complete confusion. Let me, therefore, as a private person with some diverse experience of being involved in a cacophony of life's essential issues, quietly gather and review my own assessment and for the record at this moment, I do not have a clue as to which way I will vote. The table below helps to provide some structure to my very fluid thinking. The sequence of thoughts is a combination of 'latest thinking' and 'most important points'.

Friday 27th May 2016 [mid morning]
IN TO THE FINAL STRAIGHT?
With usual Tory mismanagement, the government issues a paper on questionable effects on existing and future pensions, were the UK to leave the EU. Properly managed this would have been issued some time back not within a couple of hours of no longer being able to issue such statements.  Another example of Tory inability at basic management.

Saturday 21st May 2016 [mid morning] Tory inabiity
BACK FROM THE HOSPITAL, THE UK HAS MUCH FOR WHICH TO BE GRATEFUL
It is essential we do not put its hard worked and hard fought for advantages at risk. There is a tendency for anyone to manipulate anything according to the circumstance, hence the danger of lacking of authority at local level and lack of clearly defined qualification. The EU flounders with many people not formally qualified but manipulated for political "correctness" or "balance". The EU is NOT consistently open in crucial matters. This secrecy invokes the EU's tendency to be a Star Chamber, not true open government of the directly elected, or electable.

Wednesday 18th May 2016 [after-noon]
NO CHANGE, STEADY AS SHE GOES
was my heading for 6th May, the last time I wrote in The Weekly Commentary. Arguably, it applies to today's Queen's speech, although my original thought for today was "Fanfare for the common man"!
     "Everything is on hold for the decision of the most important aspect of all... ", is how I opened today's The Weekly Commentary. However, I was looking back sooner than today, back to religion, as an opening on moral authority. From the very beginning of this debate I have been concerned about keeping personalities and entrenched party views out of the argument and looking at the fundamental simplicities.  This weekend was Whitsun. For some reason the original phrase of Pentecost has acquired an ascendency and Whitsun is often referred to as merely a spring bank holiday, rather invalidating the Christian original meaning of fifty days after Christ's resurrection, witnessing the Spirit's descent upon the disciples. That is the relevance, in this context.
     It may be my age but it has always been a belief of mine that the company of people with which I have been engaged in this life has been for the spiritual experience gained, in preparation for what is yet to come, not simply as part of the required maturing process. I can and am looking back, reviewing what this life experience has taught me and wondering what lies ahead, all as a natural part of "tidying up" a life's experience.
     In an email, one of my cousins wrote: "What we mean by Holy Spirit is the active presence of God; the "energy of God" I have found to be a helpful metaphor. At creation, the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is the creative energy of God, the creative energy behind all that is. The word spirit comes from the Greek word pneum and the Hebrew word Ruach, both of which may also be translated wind, or breath."
     It is in this context I think of what is to follow, both in this plane and in the next. Is that not, after all from whence we originally came into this existence? Whether or not there is another plane, the purely spiritual plane, let us take the "worst" scenario, there is solely this existence. Then, for those who have children, co-operativeness of diversity is an essential key, no less the case for those of us believing there is indeed a spiritual reality beyond the close of this existence.
     The question then arising is, 'what is the best means of achieving conformity, across fluctuating diversity, through variable time?' Society is like a glacia, it does not proceed evenly but at different speeds between top and bottom, from side to centre. It is not a solid, it is a fluid, changing its form and speed according to the surrounding temperature and terrain. Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability. Of what help then is the EU's determination to have conformity and consequential rigidity across such diversity? What happens to the glacier when the tension becomes too great? It breaks up.

Sunday 8th May 2016 [morning]
LONDON LEADS
Sadiq Khan opens his mayoralty with a gathering of diversity, representing not just London but the world, as is so often the United Kingdom's position. The answer we give to the referendum question will affect the whole world, just as London factually is a world representation of humanity

Saturday 7th May 2016 [morning]
SO, HOW FARES THE WEATHER?
My Facebook connections have opened a diversity of opinions, just as diversely expressed, on the separate but integrated subjects that are essential fodder to the generic title "EU referendum".  First, let us look at the principle.  At what ever point, that on which we had previously voted changed beyond that remit, is the point that the referendum should have been called. The implication that the fault lies with Blair's high-handed arrogance, in perceiving his opinion was worth more than the opinion of the electorate (or was an admission he could not sell the change (and therefore it was not worth the selling, let alone doing)) is a reasonable root cause.
     On 27th June 2007 The Guardian published Simon Jenkins' column: "... What was negotiated in Brussels was a new European framework, not a housekeeping measure. It replicates the failed 2004 constitution for the foreseeable future. There is to be a single European president and, de facto, a foreign secretary, with the dignities and authority to speak on Britain's behalf, make treaties, join the United Nations, carry a "legal personality" and have enforcement powers. There is to be a cross-border human rights charter covering labour and social policy from which a British opt-out will be subject to legal challenge.
      Forty areas of regulatory authority are no longer subject to national veto and move to qualified majority voting, including transport, energy, sport and a further range of industry regulation. The new treaty even dilutes the original purpose of the union by dropping from its mission, at France's insistence, a commitment to "undistorted competition", a victory for the corporatist/protectionist Europe much favoured by the Franco-German axis.
      Whether or not Britain has secured a cast-iron "opt-out" on law and order and social policy, to pretend that these are tidying up amendments is ludicrous. As the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated in a letter to her fellow leaders, the treaty is indeed a new version of the 2004 proposal. It incorporates previous treaties plus "the innovations resulting from the 2004 intergovernmental conference". This could not be more explicit. Merkel renamed the constitution a "treaty" only to relieve the leaders of the need to honour the letter of their commitment to referendums. That Blair should be party to this trick is sadly symbolic of his office, leaving with a broken promise concealed behind a slippery verbal mendacity. The point is not whether the treaty is more or less radical than Maastricht, which had no referendum, but that he promised one. Now, to say it would be like holding "a referendum on an open plan office" is an insult to the public.
      Referendums are, of course, political oddities. They give an added layer of legitimacy to a government decision for which a general election mandate might seem inadequate. A classic referendum decision is over a constitutional change, such as the transfer of legislative and regulatory power from one tier of democracy to a subordinate or superior one. In the evolution of Europe such transfers have been continual and controversial, leading to ever greater demands for them to be referred to national electorates. To deny such participation is archaic, rooted in the oligarchic fallacy that some political decisions are too complex for mere plebeians to consider, let alone decide - long the outlook of Britain's "pro-Europe" lobby.
      The new treaty turns the European Union from a ragbag of cross-cutting laws and authorities into one sovereign and legal entity. Matters such as planning, social services and local taxation may be delegated to national assemblies, much as national assemblies delegate them to provincial and local government. But the new fount of power is clearly the centre. It was such a transfer of power (notably on labour law and cross-border migration) that defeated the 2004 constitution in the French and Dutch referendums of 2005.
      Short of dismantling the European Union, the case for a new treaty/constitution, call it whatever, is overwhelming. It is needed to embrace the morass of disciplines and protocols to incorporate 27 member states in a common economic enterprise. But the 2004 constitution was a linguistic and political outrage, a cobbled together Holy Roman Empire of a superstate, light years from the regulated trading compact of the treaty of Rome, an illiberal, protectionist and bureaucratic wasteland. It failed at the court of public opinion. Now to revive it and fob it off as a "tidying-up operation" is mendacious. If the people of Europe are content, let them say so. But to conceal it from them, to pretend that the treaty is not what it is, clearly for fear that they might not like it, marks a low point in the history of European democracy.
      The referendum argument is not symmetrical. Those in favour of the treaty are against a referendum because they think they may lose it. They want Europe to stutter forward in secret ways that confirm the suspicion of all that emanates from Brussels. Others are for a referendum because they hope it will reject the treaty. But they at least have democracy on their side. They are ready to go out and argue the case and accept the result. ..." [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/27/comment.politics]
     In my view therein lies the nub of the debate. The referendum should have been called earlier. It is Blair and through him the Labour party that failed the nation. This is why, finally, we are here. There is full legitimacy in asking the people who pay the prices if they wish to abandon their freedom to run their own country or devolve to an undefined mishmash of foreign hobbledehoys, of whom the key countries have wilfully killed several generations of our citizens precisely so that they could run our country for us, hence the last two world wars. More follows in due course.

Friday 6th May 2016 [morning]
NOW WE START GETTING SERIOUS
The UK elections have been small beer compared with the 23rd June election. It is not surprising there has been little change. The moment to speak is yet to come. This is very, very serious. This is not the UK speaking for itself, it is the UK speaking for the world, for it is the world that ultimately will be affected by our decsion, not just us.  Those bill hoarding walk abouts, so keen to ensure their good health through their physical exercise when the world disaster they are advertising finally hits home, are truly needed. Disaster really is that close and we must accept that we are all involved and bear responsibility, even by not voting, that is a statement.

Thursday 28th April 2016 [morning]
JUST LOOKING AROUND
So, where are we to date? The Conservative's manifesto is increasingly becoming Hunt's Mein Kampf! as regards the Health situation. He is mistaking advertising twaddle for serious management. Manifestos are merely election advertising, whereas the job of Health Secretary is managing the reality. He, like the EU is simply not being real. This situation provides us with a direct correlation with the EU referendum argument.
      The reality is that the striking doctors are the very people in whose hands we may have to place our lives. Is it rational to place our lives in their hands and not trust their judgement in terms of whether their revised working schedules are acceptable? Case closed, move your ass Hunt. In the EU case, again a clear case of pursuing their own version of Mein Kampf! and to hell with reality.
      The same mistake the Holy Roman Catholic church has been making and continues to make for two thousand years. It believes in conformity cross diversity. It believes Creation was a once off event, not a state of continual change through time. It believes in unnecessary male complicated ritual, for its priests' sole ego, in place of Christ's simplicity, hence the rise of the Free churches.
      Likewise, the EU dreams of life other than its present reality. Why should the EU's dream be more meaningful than those of either the Roman church or Hunt's? Because the EU's dream has already been proven to be wrong: wrong in handling the refugee problem; wrong in handling the Greek debt problem; wrong in needing to buy new countries into the EU because they otherwise could not afford to enter (a cost to which we are already contributing); wrong in their arrogance in thinking they are unique and making demands to be in their club, in effective determining they, a  part of the world are larger than the world—the same arrogance of Catholic Rome, it is but one religion and one interpretation of a concept called God, not the only interpretation and to be effective it is philosophy that must address the collective whole. It is the collective whole, with all its variety and diversity that must be tackled pragmatically. This demands FAM: Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability. That is why the EU is wrong and OUT is bringing the whole matter to a head for world benefit.

 

Saturday 23rd April 2016 [morning]
THE COMMON MAN: NOT JUST A DAY BUT HIS ERA DAWNING?
Yesterday, Obama was at his best, truly Presidential amongst friends. Today is Shakespeare's death and birth day, one of the most famous commoners in history honoured today by that same President, for the moment revelling in a common linguistic history and commonality of philosophy and custom.
      So, the child has chosen to admonish the parent. There are only three stages in the age of an empire: birth, sovereignty and decline. All children have been individually nurtured according to their unique history. Will America prove to be heir presumptive or will another country or people seize the crown:  Russia, China, Islam? The world is littered with civilisations that have been born, established themselves and then died out, their tombs overgrown by newer civilisations of man... or plant life.
     Somehow, the triumvirate of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in President Obama's eyes, should become a quadrumvirate and if America is truly going to lose its tendency towards isolationism then indeed that is a serious ball game. However, Obama highlights a perfectly reasonable reason why Putin is behaving as he is, he does have serious cause for concern, as a responsible leader for the future safety of his own nation, in the light of Europe's apparent desire to mess together. Then there is Islam. Eight centuries ago the Christian pope was calling for Holy War. Daesh may be but a bunch of common criminals but is society not guilty in contributing to their sense of isolationism and was it not the arrogance of men that sent a pope into the saddle with sword and mitre?
      This tendency to a monetary purpose to life, rather than the rendering of service, which is what lies behind the TTIP discussions, walks in the shadow of Rome's demise and the rise of feudalism. Christianity gained acceptance and then dismembered itself, essentially by refusing to acknowledge the irrelevance of its archaic views. Will Islam persist likewise or learn from history faster than did Christianity?

Wednesday 20th April 2016 [after-noon]
CORBYN AND CAMERON STATE THEIR CASES
I have finally got round to reading Cameron's case. First of all, I believe this should have been a cross-party publication.  Too much it seems a Conservative party publication that happens to be in government.
      "The UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU." A simple sentence containing three errors on the first page of text. Nothing in the EU is secured, that is the nature of the EU. There is nothing special in an exception amongst many exceptions, which fact highlights the contradiction: the EU wants conformity across diversity, denies this is a contradiction, so conforms by creating exceptions on the hoof. The EU has shown that it has absolutely no intention of reforming. If that were so, Cameron would have asked for what he should have asked for, not watered it down and accepted less than he asked for. The EU has no intention of changing. The question is simply, do we continue as we are or do we run things ourselves again?
      Page 2 shows a basic, bulk produced calendar on an empty desk top. They've run out of things to say already! On page 3 we lack The Sun's bathing beauty but page 4 is all picture of two and a bit chaps tinkering with machinery. Page 3 tells us the EU buys less than half our products. In other words the rest of the world buys 56% and the EU prevents us from selling to all of the rest of the world. No statement as to why this is or why such denial is to our advantage.
      Page 6 shows a pair of jeaned legs carrying a shopping basket but does not say, but attempts to imply (standard promotion trick avoiding actually making a statement) that the contents are the goods that would cost more if we left but does not say by how much. Page 5 tells us that voting to leave would put pressure on the pound but avoids telling us this is because the present government has failed to announce its intentions should that be the situation: just as Hunt has failed to properly handle the NHS. Management requires covering all contingencies and having plans pre-laid for each circumstance. Apparently travelling is much cheaper because of the EU. Why then are we delaying the Heathrow runway yet not tackling the air pollution problem already there, effectively demanding reduced air journeys?
      Page 7 effectively states "why on earth did we get involved with the EU in the first place"? Not being a member, life is suddenly uncertain.  What's new? Tomorrow, which of us will be dead? We don't know but we do know that some of us will be dead and that the EU will get deeper and deeper into everyday life, making the simplest things ever more complicated, totally unnecessarily and causing further rises in unnecessary administrative costs. Page 8 is filled with a picture of a deserted cargo dock.
     The only value of Page 9 is not to tell us that we are vulnerable to arrest in any EU country which is intended to include several more of the lesser modernised countries and not all having the human rights protection of law that the UK enjoys. Page 10 is an entire picture of a "UK Border" sign as displayed in airports.  I have noticed of late that sign typography has generally improved considerably but do not understand how such detail is remotely relevant to the vast subject under debate.
     "The EU is a group of 28 countries", next to one another. It does not mention that the UK created a group of 53 countries globally (the British Commonwealth) of which "No one government in the Commonwealth exercises power over the others as is the case in a political union. Rather, the relationship is one of an international organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status and cooperate within a framework of common values and goals as outlined in the Singapore Declaration issued in 1971" [Wikipedia]. The EU is specifically created (initially surreptitiously) from a basic trading arrangement into a deliberately dominating political diktat. That simply is not our style.
      There is a strong emphasis that EU membership magnifies the UK's ability to get its way, so why did not Cameron ask for more than he did and got less than he asked for? How does one out of 27 views gain a majority? More particularly, why should our view hold sway? Surely, all we want is the validity of the argument but where is there validity of argument in the EU at present, with its determination to standardise across diversity? It simply is not rational.  With such attitudes the EU is a "civilised" version of Daesh "We will have you thinking our way".  The Americans have got it right, the first finger salute they gave George III, so why are they expecting us to kow-tow, it simply is not rational, unless they are expecting something out of it that we don't know about?
      Page 12 is covered in a picture of a friend having dropped in to someone's kitchen for morning coffee while they are preparing lunch but no explanation as to why this is relevant. Page 13 covers the future. What future? No one knows it and what the EU has demonstrably made clear is that it has no intention to change course and has no intention of taking any notice of us, otherwise they would have agreed with Cameron and he would have had the nous have asked for a damned sight more, aptly contained in one word: rationality.
      The last page repeats that it is best to stay in the EU for our jobs: so why is Port Talbot under threat of closing down? How does a closed steel industry give us a stronger economy? With any Tom Dick and Harry being allowed in from the EU how are we more secure? The entire document is complete irrationality and a wilful avoidance of questions that matter.
      There is only one option: go back to the drawing board and think through rationally from the very beginning. I will mull and share shortly.

Friday 8th April 2016 [after-noon]
CORBYN AND CAMERON STATE THEIR CASES
In yesterday's mailbag was the supposed government statement, which arguably should have been a cross-party document. Today, Corbyn, until recently a very enthusiastic "OUT" man declared his support but admitted the EU needs reform. The immediate question therefore is that as the EU, knowing the seriousness of the issue to the UK, made it quite clear in its discussions with Cameron that it has no intention of reforming, which Cameron clearly accepts since he did not ask for anything seriously meaningful and then ended up with agreement for even less, Corbyn is clearly aware that the EU does not intend to reform.  So what he is actually saying is let's just stay in anyway. Why? Because he believes it is a socialist hot bed—does he not read the papers which seem to pronounce hard right proclivities emerging? Or does he simply not trust them?
     Realising my scribble was going to be indecipherable I reverted to my laptop. I observed "good intro"; global community; co-operation—fine but they did not co-operate with Cameron, so why later and  co-operation does not require legalistic arrangements with a mass bulk which contradicts fluidity of change, which Corbyn agreed was necessary on a variety of matters. That's the point my scribble was just decipherable.
      Need to challenge flexibility—he agrees but the EU is deliberately and perversely inflexible, so how will that help? He joined the Labour Party at 16, good for him but it has taken him a long time to get round to running it. He agreed reform was needed and that Cameron had failed, so how is he likely to succeed, he is less the actor than Cameron is? I did not see the size of his audience but the applause sounded lukewarm but there were occasional flourishes. He emphasised the need for economic reforms and I agree the country needs a major review which is why his emergence I applauded. He is truly representative of the Labour party and its members, which the parliamentary Labour party arguably is not but to what extent the true Labour party is electable has yet to be put to the test. Local elections do not count, they are or should be biased towards local arguments and cannot be regarded as conclusive.
       Labour reform re-emphasises workers' rights. This is where so many socialists go wrong. First concern is workers' rights. Wrong! For a party intending to be electable for government the first issue is people's responsibilities. In that field of social endeavour we do need to review our historical priorities. He mishandled his angst against privatisation. This is the point where he should have brought in the debate on responsibilities and rights. He missed a golden opportunity.
      He foolishly then admitted his new interest in the EU was its Labour socialism internationally, effectively an admission that neither Corbyn nor his party as presently constituted was electorable without foreign aid—does he really mean that and does he seriously intend to proceed so dogmatically with his entrenched helpmates from progressive alliances across Europe? He is right in that the Conservative party has made a right hash over steel, messed up relationships with China and made a right pig's ear of the NHS but even here the EU is likely to be more of a hindrance than a help.
      Further more, he highlighted the Tory failure to hurry internal investments, creating a demand for our own steel. However, present EU membership would probably get in the way, so Cameron needs to wait until the referendum result and I have certainly raised queries over the idea of HS2, although the idea of an "Northern Power House" seems long overdue.
      Rail nationalisation? From where the money? Can we afford raised wages? Where the evidence the sale price can afford the cost? Again, his speech sounded like a failure of British Labour needing overseas labour support. He was absolutely correct in advances made by the EU to counteract the crass incompetence of our own local authorities which have had to perform according to EU law which our own parliament had refused to pass on their own competence. Improved beaches and waterways, the environment generally and there was much more to be done, could we trust our own parliament to do it without the EU's "kick up the bum"?
    However, international co-operation does not require the EU as a bulk squabbling baggage, just co-operation with relevant parties at relevant times according to flexible changes of life, against which the EU's structure is inflexibly determined to resist. It also entails agreement with those outside the EU, so where is the problem in being outside the EU?

Friday 8th April 2016 [after-noon]
TRYING TO BALANCE THE TWADDLE
In my Weekly Commentary of today's date I address the immediacy of the specific, Cameron's mismanagement of a sneaked in off the cuff personal question when he was pre-occupied with matters of national moment. He was therefore retrospectively but understandably too dismissive and did not give the question the same importance the interrogator intended it to be regarded. Towards the end of that item, I look at the other values in which the IN/OUT argument should be viewed.

Wednesday 30th March 2016 [after-noon]
In Monday's (28th March) issue of The Daily Telegraph!
The Rt Hon Anna Soubry, Minister of State (Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise) for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills declared there were five myths about leaving the EU that needed to be challenged. One was what we pay into the EU. She used two criteria not immediately compatible. A clear statement she had no case or she would have made that quite clear.
      Myth two was over border control. She claimed there was no difference... but specifically did not state that we could not control free movement of EU persons. That is, we cannot control who comes into our country, which is what the argument is about.
     Myth three is that we will have to join the euro, be part of a european superstate or a future european army. No, because of Cameron's agreement but nothing Cameron has agreed is unmoveable stone. They are nothing but "understandings" at this stage. She omits that reminder.
      Myth four is essentially that we are incapable of making any trade agreements with the EU as a nonmember and that such agreements could only be to our disadvantage. The EU is only 50% of our international trade and trade elsewhere has been greatly denied us because of the EU.
     Myth five is that europe needs us more than we need them. hat flies in the face of claims that the EU has bent over backwards to accommodate Cameron. The EU has in no way accommodated Cameron because Cameron did not ask for the essentials we need to stay in because he knew we would not get them, so he is already on the road of acknowledging the EU is not for us.
      Her myth six is really an extension of her myth five claims which are really extensions of myth four. All very much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare recalled four centuries ago. That's the sum of the "remain" brigade to date.

Thursday 24th March 2016 [mid morning]
CO-OPERATION
Co-operation is different entities working together. How such entities are differentiated really does not matter, the principle is the same whether within a country or across national borders. From a UK national security point of view, the reported differences of opinion between former senior operatives of two branches of UK security is probably no more than the individuals using the publicity opportunity to promote their personal voting intentions.  We do know that the Belgium police forces (note the 's') do not coherently work together and information that is too widely available becomes less precious. Security is therefore more sure the more contained it is which is precisely why the schengen arrangement was so incredibly irresponsible. It is the EU as a collective whole that is insecure, not that collectivity with it would give us security.

Monday 21st March 2016 [mid morning]
CORBYN RAISING THE REAL ISSUES?
Unfortunately I only came in on the tail end of his interview on BBC morning news. It would seem the undercurrent argument is about political philosophies: hard facts met with hard-headedness but referencing the elite versus those in need but not necessarily bedded in sound economics. Charity begins at home and home must be a sound base.  The Conservative philosophy is to entrench the sound foundation while still being riled that it has become necessary, through years of overspending socialism, so deficit must be eliminated.
      There is no question that Osborne has boobed. I wrote to Gauke (a Treasury Minister who happens to be my MP) before the Budget advising that to have the NHS we believed we wanted then Osborne must be prepared to put up taxes. For "NHS" read "social provision", the departmental mix between "sectors" is not helpful, "need" is "need" however classified. Osborne is behaving just like the communist party in Soviet Russia, "the plan must be met". Rubbish. Be sensitive to the mood and respond according to need. There is no doubt there is a socialist swing in the UK, represented by Corbyn which is why the university clever dicks denied us the earlier political vote on the EU. For some extraordinary reason they then denied Corbyn who is truly more representative of real Labour than they were, which is why the parliamentary Labour party does not get on with him, he's the meat and they are the fat of the socialist argument.
      What is clear is that Osborne has blown it. What he has shown is the need to get out of the EU which is exactly the opposite effect his budget intended, a bias to voting "in", on bribery for those he thought biased to his thinking.  This is the time for supporting the socialist conscience and winning back his "natural" supporters in 2020.

Thursday 17th March 2016 [midday]
BALANCING THE ARGUMENT
See table below.

Sunday 13th March 2016 [late evening]
WELL, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE GOING I WOULDN'T BE STARTING FROM HERE!
The question is, do any of us know where we are going, or why?
      I quote from an earlier post: "So, we have arrived and we recognise we are here. What is the first question we ask ourselves? Surely, 'what are our responsibilities?'"
      It is typical of all socialist pursuers that the first question they ask is, "what are my rights?" Sod that for a row of soldiers and too often it is indeed a row of soldiers that get mown down, as society sets about some form of organisation but why on earth accept the present EU way?
      Everyone seems agreed on the need for reform, which is precisely the opportunity the EU had when Cameron launched his objective and the EU deliberately and wilfully denied themselves and us the opportunity. Conclusion? The EU does not want nor intends to reform. Why then, flog a dead horse?
      First, is anything that Cameron has obtained certain? No, nothing is certain with the EU, even the law, for without acceptance of precedent even the law is liable to the interpretation of the isolated moment, devoid of relevance to the wider issues of life.
     So, as is typical with looking into the future, neither IN nor OUT gives us certainty, save that the future is always uncertain. That's life, so why make a fuss over it? Uncertainty of outcome is not a valid argument. What is valid is an objective assessment of our responsibilities and our understanding of the context in which those responsibilities must be exercised.

Recommended reading :
EU history in diagram form.
EU history in words.
The European Union
The Contestants

 

 

BALANCING THE ARGUMENT
as at Thursday 24th March 2016

ISSUE IN/OUT CONCLUSION
Thursday 24th March 2016
SECURITY:It is the EU as a collective whole that is insecure, not that collectivity with it would give us security.
OUT
Share, as appropriate but control the original source.
Does the EU seriously intend to reform? If it did, it would have responded to Cameron instead of arguing with him.
OUT
The EU has no intention of reforming, which Cameron knew and is why he reduced himself to asking for nothing remotely relevant and came away with even less.
Who is voting for whom? We, the UK electorate are voting for ourselves. National government is in our hands. We carry the responsibility and take the blame.

Who is this 'We'? Anyone and everyone has their place in society, even by absence. Their nonpresence has an effect. Death does not deny a person's historical presence, nor the accumulative (and continually accumulating) effect of that presence with us, still in life going forward. Actions of who in the past still affect the future, no less than their actually being here. It is to do with inter-relationships (any person’s 'time and place' in this existence) and how they affect and mould people for future occasions. Our absence from the EU could be more effective than our continued presence.

IN/OUT

So, we have to take into account those who are affected but are unable to vote. We have to bear in mind the effect on the EU itself. The EU declined Cameron's chance! Refusing now, why would they change? Arguably, only if in fact we went and the shock waves achieved what Cameron's approach failed to achieve. Having departed the harbour, no ship turns back at the harbour mouth, the course is set.
A lifetime's decision, but what is life? Religion has a view that Creation was a "one-off", in defiance of everyday knowledge that tells us life is a state of continual change. So why does secular EU make Christian religion's mistake of firming universal rules across a world of diversity, in deliberate opposition to to the Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability needed to give the whole conformity? The EU is irrational.
OUT
Is God rational? The fact that many of 'His'(?) adherents (mostly men) defer to irrational concepts does not decry ideas about God but declaim His proponents' failings. They are the same prophets, a few generations on, using the secular concept to promote their own egoistical declarations, which is all that priests have ever been. Why promote further their proven errors?
Working with others.
To what extent does anyone control anyone? We have been outvoted forty times at EU crucial debates. Membership gained us no advantage but forced us to accept being imposed upon. Outside, we may not get our way but we do have our preferred way of handling the outcome, whatever circumstances are thrust upon us.
IN/OUT
 
The sheer practicality of numbers. How can any government manage the society for which it is responsible without having the facts but the EU deliberately denies us gathering facts. We need to know who is coming in with whom and with what potential future liabilities (children, other family) so as to assess school places etc. Buildings take awhile to construct and be fitted into the wider gamut of local society, with all the related social requirements: health and NHS demands, transport, housing. Our own government agreed we could not hold the doors open for the Commonwealth, so where is the logic in bowing to the EU's demand we let any EU citizen in which potential numbers are even greater? It simply is not rational.
OUT
Unbalanced social needs are less controllable inside the EU: we need an Aus style grading, border and law control to ensure eviction. EU law is irrational.
Is it logical the largest of all 'modern' European empire builders should renounce the rest of the world? We are part of the world and migration is a world problem not an EU one. Leaving the EU will not solve the migrant problem, nor address the depleting world resources and the vacuousness of those who would presume to overthrow us?

The EU is failing to maintain its borders effectively and to what extent do we owe to others, our own development? At the same time, our own government believes in devolution, how come it supports loss of our ID into an amorphous sludge of incoherent indecisiveness called the EU? It is irrational.

Are we, as with Germany, needing immigrant labour? Or are we failing to educate and failing to invest in equipment rather than cheap labour?
IN/OUT
 
THE BUDGET: Based on the assumption of staying in a reformed EU but the EU has made it clear it has no wish nor intention to reform, so Osborne torpedoes his own argument! Planning for the future "holding a steady course ahead". World slowing. Raises questions "is commercial growth ever necessary?" When are we replete? More essentially, Osborne is effectively saying the economy is unbalanced, a good time therefore to make major change and see the problems as a collective whole in an organised manner.
OUT
 
Perversely sound financial management is the time to take risk and leave, if Osborne is remotely sound financially? It is a socially unbalanced budget, something for those who have something but for those still trying? Social self-interest or fear may determine an IN vote.    
Devolution ensure the principle throughout.
OUT
 
Osborne admits the future is a dangerous cocktail, clearly the time to make major decisions for the next generation, precisely. Should the next generation be denied the freedoms of government we enjoyed and for which our parents risked and gave their lives? Where is our duty to their sacrifices?
OUT
 
Sticking to his plan! So is the EU, sticking to its airy fairy ideas of life being other than it actually is
OUT
Persistence is not necessarily a virtue it can be a statement of egoistical arrogance, or damned fool stupidity!
BEING PHILOSOPHICAL: Why not? The EU believes in in figments of imagination. Our politics start with the House of Lords: spiritual and temporal, which last includes the law lords.

Modern politics in the Commons would have: capitalist; socialist; the church. All three are pragmatists dealing with materialism. In the Christian church, "the spirit was made flesh and it is the flesh that ascended into heaven". Arguably, then, for Christians, there is no dividing line between spirit and flesh!

Perhaps it is my age that recognises the closeness of that "other place". All three believe in sharing/distribution of wealth but argue over the economic mechanism. Both mechanisms can chalk up success and failure but both mechanisms deny the Christian church that is their source.

The oneness of Creation must be both spiritual and material and therefore the imbalance of the haves and the havenots, however defined is a basic injustice and any injustice is an affront to all. There is no difference in principle between the Daesh nutcakes and the Chancellor's responsibility to budget accordingly. His ego has to be justified in the historical light of his office. It is that office that is a mechanism for continually maintaining social justice.

Arguably, the difference between the EU and the UK is the balance of capitalism and socialism. The EU, fundamentally flawed at its foundations with irrational ideas and happy simply to charge out the costs while the UK, currently basically sound but failing in fair play to all.
   
FUNDAMENTAL BASICS: The failure of the EU to understand women's needs in matters sanitary declares its failure to understand social requirements, raising the question, is it really socialist?
OUT
There is no question that the EU must understand its place in society as the servant of us the people who pay its costs. There is no question OUT OUT OUT, it clearly will not be brought to heel.
"I adhere to my course" Just what the EU did when Cameron gave them a chance to show they could change, they chose not to do so.
OUT
 
     
     

Sunday 13th March 2016 [after-noon]
AN INTERESTING DIVERTISSEMENT
Great Berkhamsted (which I prefer), although I do not choose any of the older spellings, save that 'Berkhampstead' did have an appeal when much younger, probably because my grandfather base stuoidity!had a rubber stamp with that spelling, either for Labour party reasons or for "The Odd Fellows", a social charitable foundation to which he acted in various administrative ways.
      Any way, a divertissement. Having a moment to myself, I have to let it be known how magnificent was the Berkhamsted Bridgewater concert in St Peter's last night.
     Berkhamsted is unique in the diversity of activity that is taking place every day at almost any hour. Consequently, there are usually available seats on the door as it is not uncommon for regulars to be trying to be in two places at once!
      This occasion was extraordinary because Yuki Kondo, winner of many international prizes was with us in Berkhamsted because her prize for winning the Pianale International Music Academy and Competition in Germany was to play a concerto with Bridgewater Sinfonia, such is our local orchestra's reputation, it is internationally recognised. She has twice been awarded the Best Pianist prize by the Japan Arts Centre.
      As a supporter, I am usually amongst the first four pews but for health reasons I had not paid my annual 'Friend's sub' but merely at the door (£16 on this occasion) and found myself in the last pew, despite which I had a clear view of her fingers thundering up and down the keyboard.
      It may therefore be of interest to those less knowing that even that far back the concert is most enjoyable. In her honour it was a slightly fuller orchestra than usual but it was not just the acoustics that gave depth to the orchestral accompaniment but the breadth and intricate depth could only derive from a superb local orchestra that has the standing to mix superlative amateurs with first class professionals. Pendley Open Air Shakespeare, down the road in Tring, does a similar thing annually in August with an acting company.
      This was the first occasion I had heard the piece live (Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini). There was a larger than usual orchestra for her which may have helped but even in that last pew the sound was magnificent, deep, sure and accomplished. You cannot know the piece without knowing that it is the eighteenth variation that the world knows and quotes. To watch the twenty-fourth and last variation is bewildering in the technical difficulty it presents for the pianist.
      A magnificent and superb evening, accompanied by the Peer Gynt Suite No.1; Parry's Elegy for Brahms; Cappriccio Espagnol as a magnificent exit.
      What has all this to do with the EU question? A lot! For that is really what it is all about—living a life to the full and you can only do that if you are fully involved in the life around you and in which you and your family exist. Life really is very simple.
       Take the "God" question. Either one believes there is a spiritual aspect to the biochemistry we call "me" or not. If there is not, there is no immortality. If there is immortality, then conjuring the mind with what it may be like is an abstraction, the fact is that it is worth doing the best one can for a future of unknown description but there is a future; if one has no such belief, it is not rational to have less of an interest, one has no idea for how long one will continue in one's present existence and if one has children it is common sense to have a care for their future welfare, if one is not magnanimous enough to care for the planet overall.
      Keeping things simple is where religion failed, it contemplated complications on the nature of God, largely influenced by the arrogance of man seeking to maintain his "authority", when the nature of life made his seeming "authority" from practical strength increasingly irrelevant. That is why God is perceived as manly and not womanly or bisexual, causing confusion of identity and a warped definition of social conformity.
      In the rationale of a secular society the EU is making the same mistake made by religion. It is laying down complex rules by which society may be regulated, when society has just proved authoritarian approaches don't work! It requires but a nod of the head to acknowledge that between 'God control' and 'today' there was a mere sneeze of Communism and various egocentric exuberances that collapsed in on themselves, or were brought down by the collective whole. Why, therefore, create the secular 'god-head', Germany, that the rest of us had paid the price to subdue? What actually is this 'god-head' that has been created? It certainly is not us, 'the people' for whose benefit the EU is supposed to have been created.
      That question is not greatly unaligned from the greatest of all questions, "why are any of us here?" So, we have arrived and we recognise we are here. What is the first question we ask ourselves? Surely, "what are our responsibilities?" It is typical of all socialist pursuers that the first question they ask is, "what are my rights?" Sod that for a row of soldiers and too often it is indeed a row of soldiers that get mown down as society sets about some form of organisation and why on earth do that the present EU way? Everyone seems agreed on the need for reform, which is precisely the opportunity the EU had when Cameron launched his objective and the EU deliberately and wilfully denied themselves and us the opportunity. Conclusion? The EU does not want nor intend to reform. Why then, flog a dead horse?

Saturday 12th March 2016 [after-noon]
IN MORE DELIBERATE MODE
In Biblical terms I am fortunate: three score years and ten and I am adding on to the 'extras' while I am still vaguely 'with it'.  That raises an interesting moral question: is it right for me to vote? By universal suffrage, "yes" but in terms of long-term effect on my life, I have no 'long term'. This raises the whole question of retirement.  At what point does one abandon life, or one's right to exercise judgement that determines the next half a century or more for most of which time I will not be here, nor do I have children, although are not all children my concern, as a matter of due regard for the effect of my life on this planet?
      Currently Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) is "leave" and he covers my borough council area, while David Gauke (South and West Herts) my actual constituency is for "stay". Interesting. For now, more anon!

Wednesday 9th March 2016 [mid morning]
JUST A QUICKY
As I posted on Facebook: "It is complicated but the key is that the electorate requires the NHS the electorate perceives it needs. If we are trusting our health and lives to those doctors striking then it is obvious common sense to trust their need to strike."
     Following on, why is the NHS understaffed, could it be because under the EU we are not allowed to regulate our border determining our fitness to receive people, especially those who have not paid in to the NHS?

Sunday 6th March 2016 [late after-noon]
NOW THE ISSUES ARE BECOMING CLEAR
The Boris interaction with Marr this morning was singularly disappointing.  Both failed to deliver competently,  argy bargeying over words! The fact that we have a full scale argument of the interpretation of words in our own language highlights the problem with agreeing absolute conformity across 27 other countries.

Wednesday 24th February 2016 [late after-noon]
NOW THE ISSUES ARE BECOMING CLEAR
Argy bargeying over words! The fact that we have a full scale argument of the interpretation of words in our own language never mind 27 other languages (actually there are 24 official and working languages in the EU) indicates that word usage is crucial. Who is actually understanding what?
      The EU has one of the largest translation services in the world: a permanent staff of 1,750 linguists and 600 in support, bolstered by a further 600 full-time and 3,000 freelance interpreters. On the basis of simple semantics, the EU is totally untrustworthy. If I remember correctly, the EU legal process does not take into account historical precedent, the basis of English law and the way the law changes over time, just as the world around it changes through time, while maintaining a coherent whole of the original intent in its original circumstances.
      It is the nature of lawyers to argue over interpretation but when lawyers argue over the possibilities of interpretation at an undefined future unclarified by the actual fact of record... ? Gove is right in principle. Therein lies our conundrum. How much is being assumed on trust? How much is who trusting in whom and therefore are unintentionally liable to being countered in their promises?

Monday 22nd February 2016
WHAT IS IT REALLY ALL ABOUT?
Simplicity is most certainly what the EU is NOT about which, in a nutshell, is precisely why it is not appropriate for anyone, not just the UK. The UK is the only country in Europe that has the experience of running an empire and trading inherently with the rest of the world. All others in Europe  either never made the effort or achieved to a lesser extent and finally failed. The UK created a Commonwealth of 53 free and independent nations which chose to remain part of that historical achievement, collectively and severally going forward.
      There lies the first break point, to use a tennis analogy. First, let us be clear, the issue is not Europe or its peoples, it is a question of managing a diversity of historically different peoples embedded in different cultural experiences. It is from that structural fact that the concept of the EU derives and which those moulding the political intent of the EU have deliberately avoided publicly acknowledging. There is no point in trying to build a palace of stone if the only materials you have are mud, water and sand. More importantly, there is no point in building a rigid structure if you intend it should float in the sea of change that is inevitable over time.
      Religion has already proved the pigheadedness of laying down static rules and regulations for a circumstance it believes does, or should exist in society, in place of recognising the reality of what is the natural inherent state of that society. Creation is/was not a "one-off" event. Creation is a state of continual change through time. Why then burden society with rules and regulations that are designed for a passing moment in time, knowing full well that they are immediately irrelevant for the future, to which society is inevitably drawn by the nature of its existence—a state of continually unpredictable, variable change?
      Religion relied upon the presumption that to believe something was all that was required to make it be so. Clearly, as Creation develops, the organic, animal nature of life diversifies but also dies out. The human intellect diversifies its challenges and develops ever more practical and realistic answers to the essential questions of Life that previously bewildered it and historically answered with tales of fantasy and imagination. So does the EU. Having determined a secular commonality, it proceeds to "manage" it just as the Holy Roman Church presumed to run Christendom (and still does, there are no women priests), just as official [definition please] Islam runs the Moslem communities, archaically out of touch with the realities of the times. 
      The EU has dispensed with religion, it is a personal matter of individual conscience. Why, then, does the EU so deliberately follow religion's proven mistakes? The Roman church has lost its way amongst a rigmarole of clerical hierarchy, countering the church's supposed original intent—the simplicity of the congregant in communion with their God? So, the EU buries itself in a rigmarole of committees to ensure that all is as confused as possible and nothing is remotely relevant to the facts as they already exist, because the facts as they are were not devised by the EU, whose management is geared to the EU's perception of how things should be, not as they actually are and the last opinion the EU wants is that of the tax payer who pays their salaries and costs.

Sunday 21st February 2016
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!
The PM has not yet learned that words need to be collected together into sentences, from which paragraphs lead the way to a constructive story. Unfortunately, his story is no more than a preamble to a conclusion, arrived at through a morass of wholly unprovable facts, accepted with the facileness of a commercial product announcement designed for the waste bin.
      He has asked for nothing, achieved less and regards this as an achievement! It is understandable.   Twenty years ago the Conservative party faced the question of a referendum on the issue, "should the European Economic Union become a political entity?" The reason for a referendum was because the purpose behind such a question was a United States of Europe. So, where the EU now wishes to go is precisely where it has always been intending to go for the last twenty years. Suddenly, people are beginning to wake up. What is happening now is what everyone, who knew what they were talking about because they insisted on being involved then, knew would happen: hence the Referendum party, for which I stood as a parliamentary candidate in Hemel Hempstead twenty years ago.
      It was the Labour party that agreed to accept this inevitability without a referendum specifically because we, the people, would probably refuse to accept it. Consequently, we have always been negatively disposed towards the EU because the Labour party forced it upon us in direct defiance of Churchill's maxim, "Trust the British people". The Labour party does not trust the British people because they distrust down to earth common sense, continually proven by persistent disruptive trades unionism.
     The Labour party is the political representation of the trades unions whose sole motivation is why something should not happen. Last year's pointless and irrelevant tube strikes demonstrate that mentality is still there. Better educated people, of a nonpractical industrial background, then climbed on the Labour party's shoulders, giving us the NHS and trying to knock some political sense into the belligerents who declined the opportunities offered, scrambling Labour's social argument into a platform on to which university twits, without any industrial background at all, climbed to prance their self-glorification: hence the Iraq war and our present international upset.
      Even now, the Labour party is clammering for "workers' rights" but not a single word is mentioned of their responsibilities, to ensure the lower waged can get to work on time, so they can earn to keep their families together; or key health workers can get to their duties, instead of walking, or paying for taxis they cannot afford because trades unionists have stopped running transport having decided to hold a strike, which act of indolence they describe as "industrial action".
      The first place one starts in society, if one is fortunate to be brought up by responsible parents, is personal accountability. From there spreads the realisation of what society is about. From there develops the questioning mind and if one has parents of an enlightened education one learns why one has inherited presumed prejudices and then one questions as to whether or not those prejudices of one's parents and the background into which one has been raised need changing.
     So, Corbyn's correct starting point is "workers' responsibilities", not "rights"... and who are the workers? All of us, because we all need the mechanism by which we can live our lives and manage our resources—and that is a "social contract". How does a "social contract" gain authority?
      To keep things simple, our present social contract is as a nation—the United Kingdom, created through argument over history.  A nation that contributed to winning two world wars and creating a nature of government that is respected and emulated around the world.
      What Cameron is actually proposing is that this nation should give up its historical achievements and submit its people to the arbitrary diktat of hobbledy hois, gathered from societies the United Kingdom has several times defeated in war, because they chose to oppose what this country stands up for; nations whose attempts at empire building never matched that of the United Kingdom; nations who cannot agree amongst themselves today, cannot employ a joint plan for handling the present crisis they wilfully created through creating the Euro and Schengen which, they now realise they need to counter; while the UK built a Commonwealth of 53 nation states, trades with the world (or would if the EU was not so small time insular) and Labour and Cameron agree that to submit to this shambles is a logical and beneficial gain! That, simply is what it is all about!

Saturday 20th February 2016
EARLY DAYS
I refer you to Gove's comment which, for the moment, will do.

 

INDEX

It was Labour's socialism that determined acceptance of the EU's diktats without argument because it took away their accountability for what they knew the country would not accept. All that is happening now is the rational debate Labour were not capable of holding.

The general conclusion appears to be that we need to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay and NOT reduce the cost of aiding those in need.

That would seem to include a proper provision for our military needs and ensuring extra taxation to meet revenue costs derived from taxpayers' REVENUE income.

 

PARLIAMENTARY WORK AHEAD
Boundary clarification. How many seats and what  preferred size of constituency population?

Proportional representation. Which system?

House of Lords? Should it be elected or appointed and upon what classification? Originally based on the realities of the day: Spiritual; Legal; Defence; land ownership; hereditary entitlement.

Today? Spiritual but across the faiths (define), including pure secularism/humanitarianism (all appointed/elected by their respective 'churches'); Legal, as is; Political (variable by proven worth, such as past ministers or retired professional senior civil servants and limited party nominations); representatives of Capital, Financial Services, Labour (all either retired or active, recommended or elected by their respective accredited bodies); Education (ditto precedents stated); Health (ditto); Other?

The whole reviewable by a statutory committee reporting with recommendations to parliament on a ten yearly basis to cover relevance of classifications in the then current world. Modus operandi as at present.