FRIDAY MUSIC: Eileen Ivers, by JD

Eileen Ivers is an Irish/American violinist. Born in New York she began playing fiddle/violin at the age of nine and over the years has progressed from traditional Irish fiddle playing to being perfectly at home in virtually every genre of music. As an example see the video below in which she is more than a match for the great American jazz violinist Regina Carter and the classical player Nadja Salerno Sonnenberg. (By the way, she also plays the banjo, and why not!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Ivers

On her website, The New York Times describe her as "the Jimi Hendrix of the violin.
A ridiculous comparison. She is a virtuoso on violin, Hendrix was flash and mediocre even by rock's low standards.
http://www.eileenivers.com/about

BREXIT: The Political Declaration - Fifty Shades Of Yea

The post below has also been published on The Conservative Woman:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-eus-written-a-bloc-buster-but-will-boris-rip-it-up/
________________________________________

The Political Declaration contains divorce terms so amicable that the opposing parties ought to get a room. Yet if the General Election forecasts are correct, the next Conservative government should have a majority that will let Boris Johnson radically revise the WA/PD or scrap them altogether. Will he do it?

Should he do it?

The hubristic European Union is already gloating that May’s Withdrawal Agreement hasn’t been modified, merely clarified. I haven’t yet studied the documentation, so I can’t say – but then, how many MPs and spads have done so? How many, rather, are like Douglas Hurd at Maastricht, who jested (and was it a jest?) ‘Now we’ve signed it – we had better read it’? Still, they’ve had two years to go through what was 599 pages and is now only 541 – not much longer than an airport bonkbuster; and it’s their job, after all.

The Political Declaration, on the other hand, is merely 26 pages in both the original and revised versions; the length of a short story. Even the layman can read that, and what a story it is!

This sketch of the future relationship between the divorcees is half lawyer and half lover. In the first version the word ‘ambitious’ appears seven times, ‘close’ sixteen, ‘to the extent possible’ (and similar phrases) thirteen, and ‘align/ment’ four. One feels the bonds being tied already. So masterful… and so yielding!

And the atmospherics are not much changed in the revision. Yes, the Irish backstop has been taken out – including the twice-used commanding phrase ‘on a permanent footing’ (how did that get past May’s negotiators?), but disputes are still to go to the EU’s Court of Justice for a ‘binding ruling’ (tighter, please!)

Here’s an odd detail: the original spoke of ‘administrative cooperation in customs’ but left out VAT. Not insignificant: we sent £3.1 billion (pre-rebate) to theEU last year, which is like winning the 10 biggest-ever jackpots on the Euromillions, twice over, annually. Oops, or not?

As for the UK-fisheries-strangling ‘level playing field’, here’s the new (longer) paragraph – even if, like me, you’re not legally trained, how many carefully ambiguous – and entangling - phrases can you find in it?

‘Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement.’

Back to Johnson’s revise/scrap option. Can he do it?

Fair stands the wind for Boris: Corbyn's Labour Party has culled smoothie crypto-Marxist Blairites - who unlike him have actually held power and foisted real constitutional damage on us - but also repelled Old Labour by openly espousing a Marxism that would have Cassandra crying in the streets. Accordingly, Electoral Calculus predicts (as at 9 November) a 96-seat Conservative majority. This is not counting the pact offered by The Brexit Party (and favoured by TCW readers) that could split the working-class Labour vote in many key seats.

So far, Johnson rejects Farage's offer, but the risk he is taking is that enough traditional Conservative voters will understand and reject the hurriedly-made-over May deal to split their vote, too. Should they be convinced that Corbyn has no chance whatever, then anything could happen in the polling booths.

If Johnson wants a 1997-scale landslide, then like Blair he should shun presumption and over-engineer his campaign. There is still time: unless I'm mistaken, a new Parliament might pass a fresh Meaningful Vote in favour of an ironclad real deal on the slipway, instead of launching a paper boat into a stormy sea with BJ's huff-and-puff in its sails.

In short, the choice on 12 December is not between Citizen Smith and the Blond Bombshell; it's between Bullish Boris and Blowhard Boris. If he doesn't deliver Brexit, it won't be because he didn't have the chance. And then we shall know him.

FRIDAY MUSIC: Amos Lee, by JD

You may not be familiar with the name Amos Lee but he is an extremely talented young singer/songwriter and fully deserves a place in our mini hall of musical fame here at Broad Oak Magazine. You will understand why when you listen to the selection included here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Lee

Walking protohumans started in Europe?

According to research published in Nature, the first bipedal ancestor of modern humans may have come from southern Europe. Dubbed Danuvius Guggenmosi, the remains were found in Bavaria and date from c. 11.5 million years ago.

Only a few weeks before this discovery, another research team speculated that a 10-million-year-old pelvis belonging to another species called Rudapithecus Hungaricus may have enabled it to walk upright, too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03418-2

Before now, says the Daily Mail's report, the earliest evidence of two-legged hominids came from Kenya - the 6 million-year-old remains of Orrorin Tugenensis -  and some fossilised footprints on the island of Crete.

"The discovery of Danuvius may shatter the prevailing notion of how bipedalism evolved: that perhaps 6 million years ago in East Africa a chimpanzee-like ancestor started to walk on two legs after environmental changes created open landscapes and savannahs where forests once dominated."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-7658067/Prehistoric-ape-Germany-pioneer-two-legged-walking.html

So rather than coming from Africa, it's possible that some of humanity's ancestors may have gone there before re-migrating northwards.

______________________________
Cross-posted on The Polynesian Times: https://polynesiantimes.blogspot.com/2019/11/walking-protohumans-started-in-europe.html

Remainers softening? A straw in the wind

Two years ago, the world-famous broadcaster David Attenborough was comparing opposition to the EU to spitting in each other's faces, and 'criticised the decision to put leaving the European Union to a referendum because people had not been given “the facts"'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-attenborough-brexiteers-spit-europeans-eu-leave-uk-bbc-michael-gove-experts-a7967591.html

More recently, without publicly declaring himself a Remainer or Leaver (and that in itself indicates consciousness of enduring public division), he has said:

“I think that the irritation of the ways in which the European community has interfered with people’s lives on silly levels or silly issues has irritated a lot of people who don’t actually understand what the advantages and the disadvantages are.”  ...

“They’re just fed up with somebody over there who doesn’t speak their language, telling him how much money they’ve got to charge for tomatoes or something silly.”

Asked if he was more of a Brexiteer than a Remainer, Sir David said he believed “there had to be a change, one way or another”.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-08-21/sir-david-attenborough-people-are-fed-up-with-european-union/

It's interesting that he understands that there may indeed be disadvantages in our EU membership, and that the EU attempts to micromanage in a counterproductive way.

I read this as a sign that at least part of the Establishment is becoming aware that the Referendum result was not merely a flash in the pan and that there is much settled feeling against the European project.

Granted, in the quotation above the speaker seems to say - as so many Remainers said, immediately after the vote and persistently from then on, that such people 'don't actually understand' the issues (though I really don't see much clear, logic- and fact-based argument for the advantages, from Remainers).

But I sense a shift. And I think the traffic is more this way than that.

This post also appears on All About Brexit: https://allaboutbrexit.blogspot.com/2019/11/remainers-softening-straw-in-wind.html

All About Brexit: new blog under construction

I think it's becoming clear that Brexit is going to be a long-drawn-out process, even after (or rather, because of) the "deal" that PM Johnson seems set to push through Parliament and the EU.

There's plenty of detailed academic-type discussion available online, but I think there is a gap in the market for a more simple, user-friendly vade mecum. So I am working on a blog that will provide information, links to documents and websites etc and act as a plain guide to the issues and history.

I would like to show both sides of the argument, but I wonder whether, like me, you have found it difficult to find sources that make the case for Remain anything like as thoroughly as the many proponents of Leave? So although - on the whole - I think we should leave the EU, it would be helpful to have links to logical and factual arguments from Remainers.

Your suggestions are warmly welcomed - can be an O/T comment on any post here or on the new blog, All About Brexit: https://allaboutbrexit.blogspot.com/

Thanks!

Eco Loonery Addendum, by Wiggiatlarge

Shortly after my post on Eco Loonery was posted, two of the most cynical statements were issued by the government. Two aims can be gleaned from these measures and neither is for the benefit of the country, only for themselves.

Firstly they announced a halt to fracking amid fears of earthquakes. The fact no earthquakes have emanated from fracking sites world wide gives credibility to Jeremy Corbyn's statement, of all people. This is an election stunt. Why we should sit on 400 years of coal and shale gas but buy expensive Russian gas is a complete mystery. We are evermore going down the road of expensive and unreliable energy with wind and sun as the main suppliers.

I can only assume with no real evidence of earthquakes, just unfounded fears, that votes in the area with an election in the offing are more important than future independent energy supplies. Why are we not investing in clean coal and gas and preferring to buy in supplies as we are with gas and nuclear power from France? We are at the mercy of pricing over which we have no control. Madness.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50267454

The second item is even more daft. It would appear that Extinction Rebellion's desire to have "citizens' assemblies" to dictate or advise on eco policies has been given the green light, by the same government! 30,000 people will be asked at random if they wish to participate and then people will be selected to put forward their views.

Thirty thousand would seem like a large number but is a very small segment of the population at large.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50264797

The obvious and deliberate flaw in this is that you can bet no one who is not a climate change believer will be selected. So the likelihood is that those on the assembly platform will be almost certainly rabid eco loons as they will all be pushing to be selected, whereas others will not bother and the so called denier faction will be filtered out. We will then have XR actually pushing their agenda through a supposedly democratic means which of course it won't be.

You would think a government responsible for treating the country with contempt for three and a half years and rising would start to see the light but no, reverting to type and ignoring the people and giving in to minorities whatever the issue is now de riguer it seems.

Can we do anything ? Well voting them all out would be a start, but it will not happen. We seem to have an elite that is determined to ruin this country in so many ways, and they are succeeding.