The EU leaders are clever-stupid

Someone has posted a quotation on Facebook saying:

"The United Kingdom built its power around two principles: keeping the British Isles united and the European continent divided. Today it is about to succeed in the opposite."

Too neat, I think.

The EU member nations are divided too, which is why the EU is determined to make an example of us. I can hardly believe the incompetence of negotiators on the UK side, especially Mrs May since she seems to have taken on the role herself despite being on her third Brexit Secretary.

And tensions within the EU will not be resolved no matter what the EU does to us. In fact if they push us too hard they will give even more motivation to Italy, Hungary et al. to do their own thing.

It's the combination of wiliness and mule-headedness on the part of the EU leadership that is stoking the crisis.

Anti-Brexit Spin Puts Mail Newspapers In A Tailspin?

All newspapers appear to be losing readers - but the Mail most of all. Here is the latest I can find:

Data source: Press Gazette (The right-hand column is mine.) 

To put it into perspective, if you multiply the daily sales by six and add the Sunday edition, the Mail's weekly loss totals 1,019,198 - more than the entire current sales of the Guardian/Observer (979,801).

Why so large? In part, possibly because of Mr George Carron Greig's editorship since he took over the DM from Paul Dacre. The new line on Brexit, vilifying those who are trying to see the result of the Referendum put into practice, will have repelled many readers.

As Dacre warned in the Spectator:

"Support for Brexit is in the DNA of both the Daily Mail and, more pertinently, its readers. Any move to reverse this would be editorial and commercial suicide."

Further, it is my impression (and do please correct me if I am wrong) that Greig's Mail on Sunday was (still is?) supportive of Scottish independence-while-simultaneously-remaining-in-the-EU. This oxymoronic nationalism is a strange confection also espoused by the otherwise penetrative intelligence of Craig Murray and I can only understand it in terms of an almost gibbering atavistic hatred of the English. Or maybe something akin to that expatriate sentimentalism that causes New Yorkers to drink Guinness on St Patrick's Day, even if they're not of Irish descent.

Odd, you may think, that Lambeth-born, Eton-and-Oxford educated "Geordie" Greig might (if I interpret him rightly) take this stance towards bonny Scotland; but his father served valiantly in the Scots Guards during WWII and it's just possible that there may be family tradition at work here.

Which is why I recently wrote him a letter explaining the reason for cancelling my subscription, and concluding:

"May I also say how illogical it seems for a Scot to desire independence for his country within a profoundly undemocratic and micromanaging European Union, moreover a Union determined to become a single nation in which Scotland’s fate is to be a negligible backwater; and how contradictory it seems for him to wish this peculiar freedom for his country while doing his best to deny genuine self-government to the rest of the United Kingdom."

If I'm wrong about him, then perhaps I've made a fool of myself - not such a big task, really. But if I'm right, then I look forward to a Stuka-like further nosedive in Mail readership.

P.S. Bad Maths!

The total actual losses in sales should have been calculated by reference to the levels of a year before. But that would support my general point even more re DM/MoS readership haemorrhage vs current readership of the Guardian/Observer.
________________________________________________________________

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-newspaper-online-abcs-metro-sees-lowest-circulation-drop-as-industry-wide-decline-continues/
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/paul-dacres-diary-the-daily-mail-will-commit-editorial-suicide-if-it-turns-against-brexit/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordie_Greig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carron_Greig
https://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2018/11/boycott-daily-mail.html

Radical Marketing & Mau-Mauing The Track-Catchers

I followed up a political link to another site and as usual there were ads interrupting the flow of reading, all the way through.

So I clicked on "ad choices" and found there were 113 companies assuming the right to track my online path and target tailored ads at me, unless I specifically forbade it - which as far as I can, I have done, now.

I sometimes read columnists who complain that they get lots of ads for penis extensions and so on. What do they surf the Net for in their free time?

But for fun, I thought I'd do a few teasing Google searches myself:

"How can I make my penis smaller?"

"How can I cure my sex addiction?"

"How can I become less handsome?"

I'll let you know how I get on.

Any further suggestions for search sentences? Will you try something similar yourself - e.g. lots of questions about broccoli?

Here's the first non-financial one I noticed on Tim Newman's blog, since the searches a few minutes ago. On the site it's a gif and the girl appears to be rocking back and forth a bit, hands out of sight; not exactly what I asked Doctor Google for. Still, they're doing their best, I suppose:

Found on http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/ 24.11.18

Weekend Wonders: at the edge of the Universe

https://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

EU: Staying On Board Is Not Playing Safe

Faced with the truly awful draft Withdrawal Agreement that the Prime Minister seems determined to push onto us, some are saying "See, why don't we just stay in?"

That is a dangerous illusion. The word "remain" seems to imply staying as you are, avoiding the risks of the unknown; and in life, often a change of course overestimates reward and underestimates risks and costs, which is why 80% of new businesses fail.

But with the EU, Remain is not the option to stay safely on the platform: it is a decision to stay on the train.

And where is that train going? It is now going where it was originally supposed to go.

In the 1920s Jean Monnet began to lay his plans for a supranational organisation that would make military conflict between France and Germany impossible; first, by controlling coal and steel - the basic materials of modern industrial war-slaughter - and then by acquiring more "competences" (a code-word for "powers", used with other deceptive terms to soften the resistance from national governments and peoples.)

It is not only Britain that resisted. Despite Community discussions on military policy, France wanted to develop her own nuclear bomb; and despite attempts to harmonise agricultural policy, France wanted to protect French farming, which after WWII still employed a quarter of her working population and where the too-rapid introduction of efficiencies could have resulted in major civil disorder. De Gaulle vetoed British entry until the EC agreed the Common Agricultural Policy that used most of the Community's financial resources to sustain small French farmers. So France got what she wanted.

Britain could only get in once the CAP deal was unalterable - and the impact on farming and fishing (the incompetence of the negotiators on our side is staggering - fishing had hardly been considered!) was profound. This is not to mention the effects on our other industries, including coal and steel.

Remain supporters sometimes delight in pointing out that Margaret Thatcher herself was a Europeanist, forgetting that in earlier years she, like many others, saw the European project as essentially a trading bloc. She was prepared for Britain to play its part and fought for a rebate to make the arrangements less unfair towards us; in other words, she was trying to make the system work.

And that was reasonable, for by the early 1980s the EEC train had long been stationary at the halt of inter-governmentalism: negotiated multinational settlements.

But then, with a lurch, the train set off again. As Booker and North's magnificent study "The Great Deception" shows, in 1983 a plan was put together to unite Europe into a single nation. Monnet's dream, of which he was despairing by the end of his long life, was to come true after all. The Italian Communist Altiero Spinelli had a team draft a treaty to establish the European Union that was passed by the Parliament on 14 February 1984. There were two stages: first, the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986 and moved towards the establishment of a single market by 1992; and then the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and setting the destination of European economic and monetary union, the foundation of a new supranational State.

Maastricht was the "dolorous stroke" for British sovereignty, and recognised as such by Parliamentarians who were otherwise strongly opposed to each other:

• Margaret Thatcher wrote to Bill Cash MP on 17 March 1993 to say "I understand that it is being suggested in some quarters that I would have agreed to the Maastricht Treaty. May I make it clear that I would NOT have done so. In my view it is contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary Democracy." 

• Tony Benn MP, in the Third Reading debate in Parliament on 20 May 1993 (starting 6.35 p.m.), said "I have often wondered whether, when we lost democracy in Britain, it would be to the red army, the Militant Tendency or Oswald Mosley, but in fact we ourselves have given it up. The House has agreed to abandon its responsibility to hold to account those who make our laws. We have given it all up." For him it was - said dramatically but without exaggeration - "my last speech in a free Parliament."

The Maastricht Treaty was further amended over the years in Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, each time extending the powers of the EU. Despite the British Labour Party's 1995 manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the European Constitution, when it came down to it the Labour Government defeated a vote in Parliament to do just that.

So the express continues on its journey towards nationhood, and not only by the establishment of a Central Bank and centralised budgetary control over member States. Two days after attending the centenary commemoration of the ending of the First World War, Frau Merkel was in the European Parliament, once again urging the setting-up of a European military "intervention unit" and saying that "we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day."

And it's not just the loss of British Parliamentary sovereignty that is at issue. We have little enough control over our own politicians, but at least we were able to make PM David Cameron change his mind over bombing Syria. Our history has caused us to develop constitutional restraints on the Executive - restraints it sometimes tries to circumvent by "Henry VIII" enabling clauses and the use of Orders in Council. Even if we cannot always bell the cat, we have a political culture of healthy distrust towards our rulers.

The EU Constitution, on the other hand, is designed specifically to overcome popular resistance to unification, so that its "Parliament" is little more than a talking-shop where many members merely sign in and straightaway pull their wheelie suitcases back towards the taxi rank.



Many of the EU's political leaders have had their attitudes to power shaped in a very different political culture - think of Frau Merkel in East Germany, Donald Tusk in Communist Poland. More even than our own political elite, these people tend towards the bureaucratic and authoritarian. So not only has our country joined a larger organisation (thus further diminishing the citizens' voice), but this new and still evolving superstate centralises decisions almost as though it were run by an Emperor and his court. Who will restrain it if it decides sometime - as empires always have done - to make war? To invade, to expand, to silence critics, to crush rebellion?

To stay is not "to stay as we are." Paradoxically, to leave the EU is our best chance of holding on to an imperfect status quo.

FRIDAY MUSIC: The Chapman Stick, by JD

What is a Chapman Stick? It is a new musical instrument, invented by Emmett Chapman and is a sort of cross between a guitar and a piano. The strings on a guitar are plucked and the strings on a piano are struck with hammers so the stick is basically a guitar which is played by the fingers striking or tapping the strings above the frets. Quite simple really and guitarists often use it as a technique. But the stick has ten strings or twelve where the guitar has six. You can read more here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapman_Stick

New to me and I first came across one when I found a Rachel Flowers video of her trying one for the first time so I decided to explore some more and the videos here are a selection of what I have found.

Brexit For Dummies

                                                                                                                            Sackerson