In the Film "The Wild One" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047677/ Marlon Brando plays Johnny, the leader of a motor cycle gang. One of the most telling scenes in the film is this exchange between a girl and Johnny -
"Hey, Johnny, what are you rebelling against?"
"What've you got?"
It felt a bit like that in the House of Commons on wednesday night when every single amendment was voted down. They were rebelling against everything because, like Johnny, they do not know what they want, only what they don't want.
Naturally, the cartoonists and gag writers have been having fun. Take your pick from this selection -
https://www.bing.com/search?q=brexit+jokes+images&qs=HS&pq=brexit&sc=8-6&cvid=EC91324BF3354765B4EFEC64183485A0&FORM=QBLH&sp=1
- but I think we should have a bit of music in these difficult times to provide some tranquility(?)
Or maybe not!
Purcell's Cold Genius (fifth clip from the top) seemed appropriate given that they are all frozen with fear they might lose their seats at the next election.
You might prefer this 'fairest isle' which is from a French production of the opera and is very good:
Yes, this fairest isle or as Shakespeare described it -
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
In that book I referenced the other day, All Done With Mirrors, part of it includes the speculation/theory that these islands and especially the Orkneys is the centre of the world and the origin of European civilisation. The standing stones all over these islands and as far south as carnac in France are all distributed in geometric proportion with the Ring of Brodgar being the centre. The Greeks referred to Hyperboria in the far north which could have been these islands.
Blake wrote " All things Begin and End in Albion's Ancient Druid Rocky Shore":
https://viewfromthebighills.blogspot.com/2010/01/albion-excerpts-from-william-blakes.html
He illustrates why we are apart from and above the EU!
Europe will eventually come together just as Wessex, Mercia, Hibernia etc gradually merged into England then the UK, and Europe will be governed by Albion.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
An Email To Quentin Letts
Dear Mr Letts
I am sorry you have left the Daily Mail, but quite understand why. Under the egregious Greig it has become a crossword with garbage attached. You are one of the few people that made it worth reading (I wonder how much longer Littlejohn will stick it out?)
But judging by today's column in the Sun (re Letwin), you seem to have swapped your epee for a bludgeon. Are Sun readers really not up to appreciating your usual - natural - wit and subtlety? I think not. In fact if you were to continue writing as you did in the Mail I would consider making the Sun my regular, despite its being owned by a saltwater crocodile. But perhaps the house style is necessary - I guess I have to leave it to your professional discretion.
Btw I think we have discovered a new political principle: no-one called Oliver should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power; whether Letwin, Robbins or Cromwell.
I am sorry you have left the Daily Mail, but quite understand why. Under the egregious Greig it has become a crossword with garbage attached. You are one of the few people that made it worth reading (I wonder how much longer Littlejohn will stick it out?)
But judging by today's column in the Sun (re Letwin), you seem to have swapped your epee for a bludgeon. Are Sun readers really not up to appreciating your usual - natural - wit and subtlety? I think not. In fact if you were to continue writing as you did in the Mail I would consider making the Sun my regular, despite its being owned by a saltwater crocodile. But perhaps the house style is necessary - I guess I have to leave it to your professional discretion.
Btw I think we have discovered a new political principle: no-one called Oliver should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power; whether Letwin, Robbins or Cromwell.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Brexit: There, And Back Again
After the usual argy-bargy, we had agreed that the trip would be to the seaside. Not that the decision stopped the sulking and door-slamming, of course.
But the real trouble started when Fi insisted that the children had to decide beforehand what flavour ice-cream we were going to have – it had to be the same for all. Yurt, ever the reborn Labrador, insisted on a double scoop of chocolate; Pashmina, despite her teenage body dysmorphia, dug her heels in for strawberry.
Of course we hadn’t told them that the beach kiosk didn’t offer either and when we broke the news there were tears and shouting.
So this morning Fi kept phoning the vendor who now only stocked a mint and quinoa mix – we suspect that’s because the first was all that grew in his garden and the second was leftovers from his cereal cupboard, but he claimed that all his customers wanted it and in any case that’s all they were going to get.
Then the children started to call her a bad mother and Fi said, fine, you work it out between you. The train was due to leave at ten and if they hadn’t sorted out their differences by then there’d be no ice cream at all, so there.
Well naturally, the inevitable happened and there’s an ongoing thumping and hair pulling situation in the lounge. Fi has been online and tried to change the tickets, but the only option is a later departure and much pricier fares, so now we’re over budget before we’ve even started.
I’m the shed and I suspect Fi is eyeing the organic Molina a Vento Grillo Siciliano in the fridge.
************
Aaaaand that’s democracy, folks.
At least, the Parliamentary version.
Like John Major and David Cameron, Mrs May has spent a long time trying to ride two horses; as in Ben-Hur, except in this Circus Maximus the steeds are galloping away from the finishing post and heading for a fork in the road, determined to take both tracks at the same time.
There is a difference, though: Major, who reportedly prided himself on “knowing how to talk to the man in the four-ale bar” must have been surprised that the latter agreed with the “bastards” in his party; Cameron’s misunderstanding about oddballs who could be sectioned with a visit from Doctor Democracy, turned out a right Eton mess.
At least May knows the score. Now it’s the Commons that is full of “fruitcakes and loonies.”
It’s no use her telling them that the Referendum was on a binding official promise to respect the result; that there was a nationwide majority for Leave that was larger than in many Commons divisions; that most MPs were re-elected on the promise of implementing Leave. For they are the People Who Think They Know Better – the ones that have being making a rowlocks of the country for decades.
And now they’ve thrown out the coach driver and taken charge of the Magical Mystery Tour. They’re all going to sit in the driver’s seat and agree the destination.
What could possibly go wrong?
It’s going to be an interesting few days.
But the real trouble started when Fi insisted that the children had to decide beforehand what flavour ice-cream we were going to have – it had to be the same for all. Yurt, ever the reborn Labrador, insisted on a double scoop of chocolate; Pashmina, despite her teenage body dysmorphia, dug her heels in for strawberry.
Of course we hadn’t told them that the beach kiosk didn’t offer either and when we broke the news there were tears and shouting.
So this morning Fi kept phoning the vendor who now only stocked a mint and quinoa mix – we suspect that’s because the first was all that grew in his garden and the second was leftovers from his cereal cupboard, but he claimed that all his customers wanted it and in any case that’s all they were going to get.
Then the children started to call her a bad mother and Fi said, fine, you work it out between you. The train was due to leave at ten and if they hadn’t sorted out their differences by then there’d be no ice cream at all, so there.
Well naturally, the inevitable happened and there’s an ongoing thumping and hair pulling situation in the lounge. Fi has been online and tried to change the tickets, but the only option is a later departure and much pricier fares, so now we’re over budget before we’ve even started.
I’m the shed and I suspect Fi is eyeing the organic Molina a Vento Grillo Siciliano in the fridge.
************
Aaaaand that’s democracy, folks.
At least, the Parliamentary version.
Like John Major and David Cameron, Mrs May has spent a long time trying to ride two horses; as in Ben-Hur, except in this Circus Maximus the steeds are galloping away from the finishing post and heading for a fork in the road, determined to take both tracks at the same time.
There is a difference, though: Major, who reportedly prided himself on “knowing how to talk to the man in the four-ale bar” must have been surprised that the latter agreed with the “bastards” in his party; Cameron’s misunderstanding about oddballs who could be sectioned with a visit from Doctor Democracy, turned out a right Eton mess.
At least May knows the score. Now it’s the Commons that is full of “fruitcakes and loonies.”
It’s no use her telling them that the Referendum was on a binding official promise to respect the result; that there was a nationwide majority for Leave that was larger than in many Commons divisions; that most MPs were re-elected on the promise of implementing Leave. For they are the People Who Think They Know Better – the ones that have being making a rowlocks of the country for decades.
And now they’ve thrown out the coach driver and taken charge of the Magical Mystery Tour. They’re all going to sit in the driver’s seat and agree the destination.
What could possibly go wrong?
It’s going to be an interesting few days.
Monday, March 25, 2019
Cashless, by JD
Following the post about the prospect of a cashless society http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2019/03/i-promise-to-pay-bearer-nothing-by-jd.html
and the observation that cash in bank notes is not real money, our blog host sent me this link which highlights 'the risks of a cashless society' -
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/the-risks-of-a-cashless-society/
An interesting post and there were two things he wrote in there which are worth further comment:
(1) "They [the Government] firmly believe if everyone paid their taxes, they would have no problem. Of course, that is a fantasy. Whatever they collect will NEVER be enough to sustain their power."
I remember two years ago Narendra Modi decided to outlaw large denomination notes because 'they were used by tax dodgers' and later I read somewhere that his 'experiment' had been a disaster because it turned out that there was very little in the way of 'black money' circulating but more importantly many businesses collapsed and unemployment went up. Plus it cost the Government in that it resulted in lower tax revenues. Can't recall where I read that but I have found this Wiki page with a summary of events -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation
Further down the Wiki page it has these reactions from a few real experts -
"Steve Forbes described the move as 'Sickening And Immoral'. He stated that "What India has done is commit a massive theft of people's property without even the pretense of due process--a shocking move for a democratically elected government." Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said that it is difficult to see gains from demonetisation, while there may be significant costs to it. Economic analyst Vivek Kaul stated in a BBC article that "demonetisation had been a failure of epic proportions.""
(2): "In Europe, there is already the tradition of canceling their currency. This is done to prevent people from hoarding cash and not paying taxes."
Long time ago it occurred to me that changing the design of banknotes was a subtle way of preventing people from keeping cash under the mattress. The last time the twenties were changed I had to go to the bank because my mother had rather a lot of notes neatly stuffed into envelopes. She had spent her whole life budgeting for the household and being thrifty. Saving up for what she and the family needed. Everyone did the same in the old days. The only outside savings she accumulated were the 'divi' on her Co-op shopping in an account there, all recorded in her 'Pass Book'. When I went to the bank with the envelopes full of cash I just said "Don't ask!" but they understood because they had mothers like that too and knowing the people who worked there helped also. How things have changed and not for the better. I still keep a wary eye on the papers for the first hint of any redesign of the currency.
Over the years I have learned the hard way that financial institutions are, like governments, not your friend! I know now that my small private pension was pointless with the returns being a lot less than promised and we all know what successive Governments have done to our pension funds.
I also know that the insurance and surety companies will do anything to avoid paying out money. Do you know the difference between a bookmaker and an insurance company? The bookie will pay you without any argument over the sum he owes you!
In the eighties virtually all mortgages were linked in some way to endowments or other 'investment for growth' vehicle. I was looking to buy a property in 1987 but could not find a normal straightforward repayment mortgage. They were very rare beasts indeed so I abandoned the idea of buying at that time. It was quite obvious to even my limited understanding of finance that the projected growth of these funds was highly unlikely to happen and so it proved.
So where to place any savings to keep it safe from all the 'sticky fingers' of government agencies and other financial wizards with their promises of unlimited milk and honey flowing from their 'safe' investments?
Not a new problem as I see from this randomly generated blog post which appeared in the right hand sidebar of this blog today.
http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2010/01/money-fund-or-mattress.html
P.S.
Yesterday I saw the end of one of those RT documentaries and it was Noam Chomsky saying 'money is a form of speech' quoting a legal judgment, Buckley v Valeo 1976. That pricked up my ears so I looked for it and found this -
https://democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19
Truly, "the Law is a ass" as Dickens observed. Legal opinion is based on the extreme logical definition of the words in the legal text with judgments handed down which defy common sense. Remember Bill Clinton defending himself during the Lewinsky affair "... it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Humpty Dumpty is the patron saint of Lawyers everywhere -
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
I think we have inhabited a looking glass world for a long long time!
and the observation that cash in bank notes is not real money, our blog host sent me this link which highlights 'the risks of a cashless society' -
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/the-risks-of-a-cashless-society/
An interesting post and there were two things he wrote in there which are worth further comment:
(1) "They [the Government] firmly believe if everyone paid their taxes, they would have no problem. Of course, that is a fantasy. Whatever they collect will NEVER be enough to sustain their power."
I remember two years ago Narendra Modi decided to outlaw large denomination notes because 'they were used by tax dodgers' and later I read somewhere that his 'experiment' had been a disaster because it turned out that there was very little in the way of 'black money' circulating but more importantly many businesses collapsed and unemployment went up. Plus it cost the Government in that it resulted in lower tax revenues. Can't recall where I read that but I have found this Wiki page with a summary of events -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation
Further down the Wiki page it has these reactions from a few real experts -
"Steve Forbes described the move as 'Sickening And Immoral'. He stated that "What India has done is commit a massive theft of people's property without even the pretense of due process--a shocking move for a democratically elected government." Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said that it is difficult to see gains from demonetisation, while there may be significant costs to it. Economic analyst Vivek Kaul stated in a BBC article that "demonetisation had been a failure of epic proportions.""
(2): "In Europe, there is already the tradition of canceling their currency. This is done to prevent people from hoarding cash and not paying taxes."
Long time ago it occurred to me that changing the design of banknotes was a subtle way of preventing people from keeping cash under the mattress. The last time the twenties were changed I had to go to the bank because my mother had rather a lot of notes neatly stuffed into envelopes. She had spent her whole life budgeting for the household and being thrifty. Saving up for what she and the family needed. Everyone did the same in the old days. The only outside savings she accumulated were the 'divi' on her Co-op shopping in an account there, all recorded in her 'Pass Book'. When I went to the bank with the envelopes full of cash I just said "Don't ask!" but they understood because they had mothers like that too and knowing the people who worked there helped also. How things have changed and not for the better. I still keep a wary eye on the papers for the first hint of any redesign of the currency.
Over the years I have learned the hard way that financial institutions are, like governments, not your friend! I know now that my small private pension was pointless with the returns being a lot less than promised and we all know what successive Governments have done to our pension funds.
I also know that the insurance and surety companies will do anything to avoid paying out money. Do you know the difference between a bookmaker and an insurance company? The bookie will pay you without any argument over the sum he owes you!
In the eighties virtually all mortgages were linked in some way to endowments or other 'investment for growth' vehicle. I was looking to buy a property in 1987 but could not find a normal straightforward repayment mortgage. They were very rare beasts indeed so I abandoned the idea of buying at that time. It was quite obvious to even my limited understanding of finance that the projected growth of these funds was highly unlikely to happen and so it proved.
So where to place any savings to keep it safe from all the 'sticky fingers' of government agencies and other financial wizards with their promises of unlimited milk and honey flowing from their 'safe' investments?
Not a new problem as I see from this randomly generated blog post which appeared in the right hand sidebar of this blog today.
http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2010/01/money-fund-or-mattress.html
P.S.
Yesterday I saw the end of one of those RT documentaries and it was Noam Chomsky saying 'money is a form of speech' quoting a legal judgment, Buckley v Valeo 1976. That pricked up my ears so I looked for it and found this -
https://democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19
Truly, "the Law is a ass" as Dickens observed. Legal opinion is based on the extreme logical definition of the words in the legal text with judgments handed down which defy common sense. Remember Bill Clinton defending himself during the Lewinsky affair "... it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Humpty Dumpty is the patron saint of Lawyers everywhere -
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
I think we have inhabited a looking glass world for a long long time!
Brexit: We Never Lost Our Sovereignty
… but we could.
Until recently I thought as so many still do, that the EU had taken over. At the Third Reading of the 1993 Maastricht Bill, that great if sometimes a little crazy Parliamentarian Tony Benn said it was “my last speech in a free Parliament.”
Not, it turns out, quite, thanks to our judiciary.
It began with a pound of bananas. Or rather, 454 grammes.
In February 2000, trading standards officers visited the Sunderland market stall of greengrocer Steve Thorburn and warned him against using pounds and ounces. After another visit in which they erased the authorisation stamps on his weighing machines, they finally raided him on 4 July 2000, seized his scales and successfully prosecuted him in the Magistrate’s Court in March 2001.
For what?
The Weights and Measures Act of 1985 had entitled traders to continue using Imperial as well as metric units; but the Act was amended in 1994 in accordance with various EU directives, outlawing the use of Imperial measures after the end of 1999.
Now, the EU only had the power to issue such orders because we had joined the EEC under the 1972 European Communities Act. A key point is that ECA 1972 included provisions of the type known here as ‘Henry VIII clauses’ that allow Ministers to pass secondary legislation on matters arising – ‘statutory instruments.’ Hence the basket of Weights and Measures Act 1985 amendments laid before Parliament on 19 July 1994 by the then Minister for Trade and Industry, Lord Strathclyde – see Column 182 in Hansard here.
Statutory instruments represent a partial devolution of power from the Legislature to the Executive, obviating the need to pass new primary legislation and so escaping bothersome Parliamentary scrutiny. This is an issue that goes far beyond the meddlesome nuisances of the EU.
Thorburn’s defence was that of ‘implied repeal’: since the 1985 W&M Act came later, surely it overrode ECA 1972? The magistrate correctly observed that EU law had primacy so long as we were still in the Community, and found against him.
Thorburn and other victims of Germaniacally zealous officialdom appealed to the High Court in 2002. Giving judgment against the ‘Metric Martyrs’, constitutional expert Lord Justice Laws explained that it was not a case of EU law versus British law, since ECA 1972 had imported the former into the latter.
So why could the 1985 law not ‘implicitly repeal’ the one from 1972?
The answer was that ECA 1972 is a ‘constitutional statute’ – a special kind that stands above the common run of laws. But – and here is the key to our prison – it arises from and remains in British law, and can be repealed by us.
Laws LJ went on to say (para 58 here):
‘There is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it. That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions. The British Parliament has not the authority to authorise any such thing. Being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.’
And so, on 25 June 2018, the EU Withdrawal Act was passed.
I am sure that His Lordship is too modest to wish it, but surely he is a strong candidate for a permanent statue on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As is a humble, freedom-loving greengrocer who died tragically young, mistakenly believing he had been defeated.
This is only the beginning. ‘We need to talk about Parliament’ – the use of statutory instruments, of Orders in Council (such a useful tool for the Constitutional vandal Blair), the general ‘bullying’ as Angela Eagle called it last week, of Parliament by the Executive.
Worse, Bruce Newsome's TCW article today shows the outrages that the latter, or at least the Prime Minister personally, is now prepared to attempt.
How tragic, that she seems willing to assist the relentless drive of the EU to make itself master of all Europe, and to snuff out our near-thousand-year-old flame of liberty before its captive nations try to light their own candles from it.
She has gone from laughing-stock to weeping-stock. She, and they, will, must, fail.
Until recently I thought as so many still do, that the EU had taken over. At the Third Reading of the 1993 Maastricht Bill, that great if sometimes a little crazy Parliamentarian Tony Benn said it was “my last speech in a free Parliament.”
Not, it turns out, quite, thanks to our judiciary.
It began with a pound of bananas. Or rather, 454 grammes.
In February 2000, trading standards officers visited the Sunderland market stall of greengrocer Steve Thorburn and warned him against using pounds and ounces. After another visit in which they erased the authorisation stamps on his weighing machines, they finally raided him on 4 July 2000, seized his scales and successfully prosecuted him in the Magistrate’s Court in March 2001.
For what?
The Weights and Measures Act of 1985 had entitled traders to continue using Imperial as well as metric units; but the Act was amended in 1994 in accordance with various EU directives, outlawing the use of Imperial measures after the end of 1999.
Now, the EU only had the power to issue such orders because we had joined the EEC under the 1972 European Communities Act. A key point is that ECA 1972 included provisions of the type known here as ‘Henry VIII clauses’ that allow Ministers to pass secondary legislation on matters arising – ‘statutory instruments.’ Hence the basket of Weights and Measures Act 1985 amendments laid before Parliament on 19 July 1994 by the then Minister for Trade and Industry, Lord Strathclyde – see Column 182 in Hansard here.
Statutory instruments represent a partial devolution of power from the Legislature to the Executive, obviating the need to pass new primary legislation and so escaping bothersome Parliamentary scrutiny. This is an issue that goes far beyond the meddlesome nuisances of the EU.
Thorburn’s defence was that of ‘implied repeal’: since the 1985 W&M Act came later, surely it overrode ECA 1972? The magistrate correctly observed that EU law had primacy so long as we were still in the Community, and found against him.
Thorburn and other victims of Germaniacally zealous officialdom appealed to the High Court in 2002. Giving judgment against the ‘Metric Martyrs’, constitutional expert Lord Justice Laws explained that it was not a case of EU law versus British law, since ECA 1972 had imported the former into the latter.
So why could the 1985 law not ‘implicitly repeal’ the one from 1972?
The answer was that ECA 1972 is a ‘constitutional statute’ – a special kind that stands above the common run of laws. But – and here is the key to our prison – it arises from and remains in British law, and can be repealed by us.
Laws LJ went on to say (para 58 here):
‘There is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it. That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions. The British Parliament has not the authority to authorise any such thing. Being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.’
And so, on 25 June 2018, the EU Withdrawal Act was passed.
I am sure that His Lordship is too modest to wish it, but surely he is a strong candidate for a permanent statue on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As is a humble, freedom-loving greengrocer who died tragically young, mistakenly believing he had been defeated.
This is only the beginning. ‘We need to talk about Parliament’ – the use of statutory instruments, of Orders in Council (such a useful tool for the Constitutional vandal Blair), the general ‘bullying’ as Angela Eagle called it last week, of Parliament by the Executive.
Worse, Bruce Newsome's TCW article today shows the outrages that the latter, or at least the Prime Minister personally, is now prepared to attempt.
How tragic, that she seems willing to assist the relentless drive of the EU to make itself master of all Europe, and to snuff out our near-thousand-year-old flame of liberty before its captive nations try to light their own candles from it.
She has gone from laughing-stock to weeping-stock. She, and they, will, must, fail.
Friday, March 22, 2019
New post on "The Conservative Woman"
... in which I discuss Bercow's Monday statement and the points of order arising.
Here:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/point-of-disorder-mr-speaker/
Here:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/point-of-disorder-mr-speaker/
FRIDAY MUSIC: Fandango, by JD
The Fandango is a lively couples dance from Spain, usually in triple metre, traditionally accompanied by guitars, castanets, or hand-clapping ("palmas" in Spanish). Fandango can both be sung and danced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fandango
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fandango
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)