SLOWLY CHOKING TO DEATH

I was trying to get myself to do the right thing and contact a doctor.  I am a bit confused about what one is supposed to do nowadays.  So I started by going to what is euphemistical called "my surgery's" web site.  I'm reading through lots of stuff which sounds like promotional sales talk like "we are working hard to care for you, and to keep our staff and patients safe", and "Your health and wellbeing matters to us".  Then I came across this:

"For your protection and ours, if you are invited to the surgery for an appointment, you MUST provide your own face covering, a mask, scarf or something smilar [sic]. We are no longer in a position to issue face masks to patients."

This is where I stall.  I know some people ridicule and belittle me for getting upset about things like this.  I have to try to understand how to cope with that attitude.  Am I little (meaning a bit pathetic) and stupid?  If that were the case, is it something I can do something about?  I think what they think they mean is that I need to be "brave" and walk into the thing I am frightened of.  That makes sense when working on a ship and you have to do things that hurt or are frightening.  I could, I suppose, ignore what I perceive to be a threat and carry on.  But my experience in life is warning me of something bad here.  So I think some more.

It is ridiculous that they come up with phrases like "Your health and wellbeing matters to us" because they are supposed to be a medical centre and they are stating the obvious.  Maybe they think some people don't know they care and they feel the need to reassure them.  But there are other possible motives such as that they are lying.  I think most people are aware of the problem when someone says "trust me".  It begs the question "Why wouldn't I?"  Some would suggest I am being paranoid but I am not - I am simply trying to understand what is going on.

When their focus of attention goes from the patients' health to their own bank balance that might cause them to perceive the need to reassure their patients that they care about them.  If someone wants me to write some software I negotiate a fee because I cannot go around writing software for no pay.  Once a fee is negotiated I pay full attention to the quality of the software.  If I am "incentivised" to write the software as quickly as possible to maximise my profit then the quality of the software is compromised.  The same applies to medicine.  So the very wording on the surgery's web site does not inspire me with confidence, and actually does the reverse.  People sometimes feel they don't know how to detect scammers and I think herein lies some of the clues.  When someone spends disproportionate time and effort trying to convince you they care about your wellbeing you should get suspicious.  The significant word in the last sentence being "disproportionate".

Having clarified some of what causes my alarm bells to start ringing I then encounter that statement saying I have to provide my own face covering.  That is absurd to the point of being insane.  When I read irrational insanity coming from someone I am relying on to have expertise that I don't posses, it becomes an affront, let alone very worrying.

There are multiple issues at play here.  The first being that they are the medical experts and should know exactly what benefits there are from wearing what sort of masks in what circumstances.  Their expressed requirement indicates no such consideration, awareness, or knowledge.  They are simply mandating "a mask, scarf or something smilar [sic]"  As a complete non-expert it has become clear to me that there are important practical differences between different materials used as masks, let alone other issues such as how they fit.  Can I turn up with a motorcycle helmet on?  If that sounds ridiculous (as it is meant to) then by what criteria am I supposed to judge an efficacious mask.  If I turn up on a warm day like this wearing my lovely woollen winter scarf wrapped around my face and sit in a waiting room I will overheat and risk passing out.  If I could acquire an N95 mask I will suffer breathing difficulties, and I might pass out.  (I have COPD and high anxiety - "For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness." [Kyung SY, Kim Y, Hwang H, et al. Risks of N95 Face Mask Use in Subjects With COPD. Respir Care 2020;:respcare.06713.  doi:10.4187/respcare.06713])

Then there is the issue of supply.  Where do I find a mask to purchase?  If there is an outlet with an adequate supply why can the surgery not get a supply for their patients?  It would make more sense, if cost were the issue, to purchase the available supply and to sell masks to patients.  Of course, given that that is not the reason, they would risk instigating an unnecessary problem of dissent and criticism if they charged patients at the door for equipment they were demanding they wear.  All of which should soon illustrate, even to those who haven't considered the issues yet, that any of these possible arguments presented so far, are irrational and vacuous.

Give that we are supposed to believe there is some medical rational for wearing a mask and given the budget for the surgery including the property, staff, equipment, and services, in what way could they possibly justify not supplying masks for patients?  I can't see any other reason except the pretence of cost.  If they presented the justification that it was about the cost then not only is that ridiculous and unacceptable but there is a contradiction in that they say they don't care what sort of face covering you use.  If it doesn't matter what sort of face covering you use then there is no suggestion of any significant cost if they supply cheep paper masks.  Surely no one can make coherent sense of this.  They say "We are no longer in a position to issue face masks to patients."  Why not?  Were they providing masks for patients previously?  That sentence implies they were, so I really want to know what has caused the change.

Then there is the issue of power, control, and hierarchy.  What they are saying really is that, quite regardless of any efficacy, they demand that you wear a mask to symbolise your agreement to do whatever they demand.  They are actually demanding evidence of my subservience to them.  This is exactly what was going on as the Holocaust gained traction in Nazi Germany.  Wear this colour triangle.  I do worry that people may think I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but actually I am trying to figure out what this is all about.  I am not particularly concerned about this one issue in isolation; I am concerned to put the various pieces of the jigsaw together to begin to understand the bigger picture.

When someone phoned me from the surgery some years ago saying that my daughter needed to come in for her vaccinations I asked which ones.  Their response was "all of them".  I enquired further saying she had had some vaccinations so which ones are they talking about.  It got to the point of me asking the nurse(?) what vaccinations are on her medical records and I was told that was irrelevant because their records were not complete.  I suggested I come in and discuss these (apparently VERY important) issues with the doctor.  The nurse{?) reacted by saying "I can't deal with people like you." and put the phone down.  If no one can deal rationally with the question of vaccines then who is going to tell me, with any real knowledge, authority, and integrity why they can't supply masks?  They have made it explicitly impossible to trust them.  They have created a layered structure of hierarchy where the people at the bottom (you understand that hierarchy of wealth that we have acculturated - it used to be that the doctors and nurses were at the "top of their profession" and the likes of managers were "lower" in the hierarchy) - the medical staff -do not know or understand the reasons for the orders and edicts being handed down to them.

I understand to a significant degree how all this junk happens psychologically and sociologically but I do not know what to do about it, nor why so many people fall so enthusiastically into ridiculous compliance to keep their job when the rules and edicts are evidently stupid even to them.  This situation is declining rapidly and hanging on to notions that things will get better is delusional.

I genuinely believe there is no way out of what is befalling us except via a most terrible holocaust.  Although I could wish people could effectively wake up and begin to push back against the insanity, all the evidence suggests they cannot or will not do that.  It was only six months ago we had a general election and the Labour Party went to the trouble of presenting an exceptional and detailed manifesto and a costing model which clearly outlined highly practical ways to stop the decline.  The majority of people did not read that manifesto.  Instead they preferred to vote for a well known liar and charlatan called Fucko the Clown.  Fucko the Clown and his circus presented no plans of any scope or substance - just "Get Brexit Done".  It was clear to me they were aiming for a dictatorship at the time, and the evidence is unfortunately continuing to support and strengthen that interpretation.

I will not be attempting to steel myself to walk into this particular battery cage today.  I prefer to sit here bleeding and in pain.  I am far too distressed and poorly to attempt to see a doctor today.

Afterthought:  Having re-read this muse I feel a lot of people might summarise it in their mind as a "mask, don't mask" issue related to medical health.  It is not.  The questions and issues around the medical efficacy of masks is a totally different subject and I would like to feel confident in the experience and integrity of experts to advise me on that matter.  The above reveals the utter incoherence of the actions currently being taken by medical centres up and down the land.  It is about the difference between someone informing and helping me, and someone ordering me about for their benefit at my expense.

2019 UK GENERAL ELECTION

I did not vote in the EU referendum.

I generally don't vote because:
a) I don't understand the issues well enough and
b) most voting issues appear to be a set of different reasons for the same concealed agenda.  So you think you are making a choice but you are actually shoring up the same single power structure of the plutocratic elite whichever way you vote.

I would have voted Remain because I saw the US, the UK, Israel, and France as a cabal of rogue states committed to intensifying their petrodollar imperialism across the Middle East and Africa.  There was a clear desire by some to unshackle the UK from any moderating influence of the larger European Union.

I would not have voted to Leave because the Leave narrative was evidently toxic with emotive manipulation and wild unsubstantiated claims.  It was distasteful and worrying to see the lynch mob tactics whipping the population into a frenzy based on fear of catastrophic consequences.  It was dangerous to hand the political power over to what many, including myself, see as the hard right fascist warmongers and oppressors.

But I was quite poorly on the day and didn't vote.

What I didn't know at the time is that I was living in the highest proportional density of Leave voters in the UK.  There is a tragic irony in this.  Lincolnshire, and Boston in particular, is a peculiar collection of swathes of impoverished Tory voters.  I begin to understand the psychology of this which I call cultural Stockholm Syndrome.  But it doesn't need a name because a lot of people recognise the subservient serfs doffing their cap to the overlord for their own security.  The overlords deliberately engender and maintain a level of ignorance to the point that in times of tension or crisis the population tend to rally round the overlords decrying any dissenters with vigour to defend their 'providers' and 'protectors'.

As the whole volatile story of the various pros and cons of the power structures involved in this EU debacle are unravelling it becomes more confusing and more revealing at the same time.

At the outset my opinion was that if the UK had a decent socialist government I would think that the UK should be outside of any tight and constraining union with the European project.  A kind of respected and respectable independent entity cooperating with the rest of Europe.  If the UK had the same kind of hierarchical, authoritarian, capitalist government that it has had since Thatcher got into power in 1979 then the UK would be better inside the EU simply by way of moderating the rampant cruelty of the Tory ethos.

It has always been clear to me that the EU is neoliberal and that the UK government is neoliberal.  The choice seems to be which arrangement most ameliorates or softens the extremes of neoliberalism.  Although Corbyn had been leader of the Labour Party since September 2015 and the EU referendum was in June 2016 it took me some time to realise that he represented a profound change in the political philosophy of the Labour Party.

No one is likely to significantly advance their understanding of the political complexity and machinations that are currently afoot before the 12 December General Election.  The landscape and emotions will be flooded with a kaleidoscopic dizzying array of sound bites to amaze and bewilder the population in true consumer culture advertising style.

Perhaps the General Election date should have been set for 25 December to heighten the profound contradictions and dangers we all face.  Christmas has been turned into a disorientating hedonistic materialist extravaganza and a veritable orgy of consumer delight and drunkenness.  All on the back of a profound story about the birth of an innocent baby human in a corrupt world setting out on a story with a tragic end brought about by greed, prejudice, ignorance, fear, and bigotry.

The NHS is a good example of the problems we are facing in the UK.  The NHS is central to the election.  It is both an important issue and a revealing one.  The health and wellbeing of the UK is the issue.  Back in 1980 Oliver Letwin wrote a book entitled "A Study of International Privatization in Theory and Practice".  In 1988 he and John Redwood produced a book entitled "Britain's Biggest Enterprise - ideas for radical reform of the NHS"  Redwood is a significant influence in the theory and agenda to privatise the social services in the UK too.  Someone may help me here by clarifying the stance these two individuals have regarding the EU but it appears to me that Oliver Letwin is leaning towards Remain whilst John Redwood is leaning towards Leave.  It is interesting since either way doesn't seem to matter to their big ideas about corporate control and free market capitalism.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was the keystone legislation that set the bigger plan of privatisation of the NHS on course.  Corbyn's Labour are the only Party to make it clear that they understand what is taking place enough by making an unambiguous statement that they will repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012.  No other Party either understands what is afoot or is willing to raise the subject in public.  Perhaps they think it is too complicated for the little people to understand.  It is evidently vital that any hope of saving the NHS resides with the Labour Party.  It is also evident that Labour are the only Party committed to reversing austerity and re-establishing the social security that has been decimated in this country (even understanding the significance of changing the Department for Work and Pensions back to the Department for Health and Social Security).

Given that we don't have the option of an entire radical reform of politics in the UK between now and 12 December it seems the issue at hand is who to vote for in the upcoming election.  On that basis I am clear that Labour is the best option at this point.  Of course the neoliberal elites may be grooming Corbyn as their way of extending neoliberalism in a more clandestine manner under the guise of socialism.  We might find, as Labour get into government, that we are faced with the right wing takeover of the Labour Party again.  Given the grass roots surge in Labour support on the back of the more socialist agenda proposed in their 2017 election manifesto it seems reasonable to at least doubt the right wing will have an easy time of overthrowing the left wing.  But what is guaranteed is that every other significant Party is committed to neoliberalism come what may.

Every other significant Party is entirely neoliberal; the only question seems to be what colour you prefer.  You can support free market capitalism which believes corporate rule with as little state control as possible (sounds a little like my understanding of Mussolini's political philosophy) and remain in the EU with the Liberal Democrats, or you can support free market capitalism and Leave the EU with the Tories or the Brexit Party.  I would caution against voting for Leave or Remain in this General Election for two primary reasons; a) there is a real danger of voting on the basis of ideas or feelings initiated by the disastrous campaigns of the EU referendum whilst this is a GE not the EU referendum, and b) this election is about the government we want for the next five years and the leading "Remain/Leave" Parties are committed neoliberals regardless of where we are in relation to the EU.

Labour has made a very clear and difficult stand which is often (almost always) criticised as being indecisive or 'on the fence' whilst in fact it is (as is becoming clear) the most open, clear, consistent, and decisive position by any Party.  First, get rid of the neoliberalism which has devastated the social infrastructure of this country.  Second, to handle the Brexit disaster in the most clear, sensible, open, and respectful way possible under these difficult circumstances.  So the proposition is to negotiate a workable and beneficial deal with the EU to Leave the European Union (they have done a lot of that work already though you would never know it from the neoliberal main stream media).  Then they will have another referendum, tactfully and diplomatically called "A People's Vote", with the details of the arrangements for Leaving the EU out in the open for your perusal.  In a calmer and more informed setting you can then vote for Leave or Remain.

The difficulty for some people is that they will fear they may be in the minority, or if they fail to vote for 'their side' in the GE that the 'other side' will usurp them, and so will attempt to grab at Leave or Remain in the General Election, but that is what neoliberalism relies on ... fear and greed.  So, are you going to act out of fear and desperation and vote for the controlling neoliberal corporate overlords whether we are in or out of Europe, or are you capable of steeling yourself and acting in a more considered and intelligent manner and vote for the socialist agenda to dismantle the neoliberal infrastructure and then vote on Europe?

My own view is clear.  For 40 years I have watched, and suffered the consequences of, the ideologues that believe, or pretend to believe, that unfettered capitalism will find its own equilibrium for the benefit of the majority.  I have had 40 years to ameliorate, amend, or alter my view and I am more convinced than ever that this 'project' is a crime against humanity and can only result in a massive increase in suffering and needless death in this country and abroad.  I'm getting a bit old, and am less interested in the consequences to me, but I know that this materialistic obsession is profoundly against humanity and nature itself.

And I am pleased to be in the good company of people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Corbyn, Yanis Varoufakis, Dr Bob Gill, Roger Waters, Ken Loach and so many more kind hearted, intelligent, insightful people.  In fact it is nice to inhabit the same planet as them.  Let's hope we can continue and nurture even more loving, compassionate, and delightful people in the future.

Priority 1 - Vote Labour - Get Neoliberalism OUT.
Priority 2 - I don't care if we're in or out of the EU at the moment so long as it is serviceable.  And I will reserve judgement until I have read the proposed arrangements.

LETTER TO MATT WARMAN ABOUT GENERAL ELECTION

Matt Warman 63 Wide Bargate Boston Lincolnshire PE21 6SG

16 January 2019

Dear Matt Warman

The defeat of the Government's Withdrawal Agreement on Tuesday 15 January 2019 would have been problematic enough had it been a marginal defeat.  The magnitude of the defeat appears to have shocked all observers across the political spectrum and across Europe.  It is indicative of a far more serious problem in Britain.

The EU referendum has been severely criticised on all levels and it may have been an attempt to consolidate some sort of consensus in the UK but it turned out to be a Pandora's box.  One year later, on account of the turmoil created, Theresa May called a General Election in the vain hope of increasing the Conservative majority.  Quite the opposite occurred and it cost a pretty penny to secure the Confidence and Supply Agreement with the DUP to maintain a tenuous grip on power.

Now the Conservative Government have not only been the first ever Government to be found in Contempt of Parliament they have also suffered the largest defeat of any UK Government in history.  All this is centred around the toxic and divisive issue of our membership of the EU.  The government is spectacularly failing to maintain or even muster the confidence of the population and this in itself is causing serious unrest as well.

As Theresa May has been at pains to emphasise repeatedly, this country needs a "strong and stable" government.  On that point I agree with her.  It is in the interest of the UK as a country and all the individual people in the UK to find some consensus within which the UK can make safe and secure progress in whatever direction it chooses.

On that account, regardless of my views on membership of the EU or my political preferences and as one of your constituents, I request and urge you to vigorously support any moves toward securing a General Election at the earliest possible moment as a matter of highest priority and national security.

Yours sincerely




Sam Spruce

LEAKED: TORY BRIEF FOR TUE 15 JAN 2019

LEAKED: BROADCAST BRIEF FOR TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2019

Jim Pickard @PickardJE on Twitter:  His profile says "Chief Political Correspondent for the Financial Times" but he is not blue ticked.  He tweeted "someone has leaked me what seems to be the government line for tomorrow, if it’s of any interest "  Looking at the documents I can't imagine why anyone would have invented them.  And they are entirely in character and as incompetent as one would expect from the Tories. [On the first page alone I have found 5 typos.]  Reading this document carefully in order to transcribe it I inevitably paid more attention to it than I would most documents produced on this level from the Government.  In my opinion it is a shoddy, unprofessional, and contradictory rush job with no meaningful substance but a lot of interesting psychological subtext.

This is my transcript of the leaked documents.  The images from which it was transcribed are at the end of the blog post.

BROADCAST BRIEF FOR TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2019

• Our deal delivers on the referendum, taking back control of our money, borders and laws, whilst protecting jobs and security and providing certainty as we leave the EU.
• We should deliver for the British people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal today.
• Voting against the deal would just mean more division, more uncertainty, and a failure to deliver on the decisions of the British people.

We have listened carefully to the concerns that MPs from all sides expressed and secured valuable new assurances from the EU including...

• A commitment to work on our new relationship can begin as soon as possible after signing the Withdrawal Agreement - in advance of the exit day of 29 March - and confirmation that this new relationship does not need to replicate the backstop.
• A commitment to a fast track process to bring our EU trade deal into force - including that it can be implemented before ratification by other EU countries, making it even more likely the backstop will never need to be used.
• An explicit linkage between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration - putting it beyond doubt that these come as a package.
• And confirmation that the UK can unilaterally deliver on all the commitments we set out for Northern Ireland last week.

These letters also...

• Confirm the legal standing of the December Council conclusions: that the backstop could only be temporary and both sides would act bring it to an end swiftly.
• And they have legal force and would be used in any further arbitration to interpret the meaning of the Withdrawal Agreement.

They build on wider assurances we have already set out including...

• New commitments for Northern Ireland - including a 'Stormont lock' so no new areas of law can apply to NI under the backstop over the heads of the NI Assembly
• A greater role for Parliament - including supporting an amendment so Parliament has a vote on whether to extend the implementation period or enter the backstop if our future relationship won't be ready the end of 2020.
• A commitment on workers' rights and environmental standards - including to work with MPs on how to implement them, looking at legislation where necessary.

We recognise that these assurances do not go as far as some MPs would like...

• But these documents contain importance assurances from the EU that both sides are committed to avoiding the backstop, and that it would only ever be used for a short time if it did come into force.
• The EU have maintained that they will not re-open the Withdrawal Agreement, and it would be wrong to pretend there are different deals available.
• The exchange of letters do, however, mean the EU has gone further than before in providing assurances and mechanisms to avoid the backstop ever being used, and to swiftly and the backstop if it was ever triggered.
• And we are convinced that MPs now have the clearest assurances that this is the baest deal possible and that it is worthy of their support.

There is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal:

• We will control our own borders and end free movement once and for all.
• We will protect jobs and security.
• We will no longer send vast sums of money to the EU.
• We will be able to strike free trade deals around the world.
• We will take back control of our laws, ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK.
• And we will protect the integrity of our United Kingdom.

BREXIT Q&A

'Amendments tabled?'

• The selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker.
• We will look at all the amendments in the usual way.

'Murrison amendment'

• The assurances published today make clear that both sides remain committed to avoiding the backstop and, if it were ever used, it would only be temporary.

'Benn amendment'

• This amendment shows the Government's plan is the only one on the table.
• As with the Labour frontbench, this amendment rejects our deal without putting forward any alternative.
• It is pure self-interest to try and stop Brexit and overturn the result of the referendum.

'Mann amendment'

• We recognise concerns raised on the protection of workers' rights and environmental standards.
• We have committed to addressing these concerns and will work with MPs from across the House on how best to implement them, looking at legislation where necessary, to deliver the best possible results for workers across the UK.

'Swire amendment'

• We will report in the final half of 2020 on progress made towards the future relationship and make sure Parliament - informed by the Devolved Administrations - will be able to consider whether to extend the Implementation Period.

'Going to win the Meaningful Vote?'

• We're fully focused on winning the vote on the deal - a deal that delivers on the referendum and is in the national interest.
• And as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we should deliver for the British people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal today.

'Plan B?'

• We are working to ensure that MPs vote for the deal tomorrow and we deliver on the result of the referendum - with a good deal that protects jobs, security and our union.
• It is important that we don't see a situation where there is a paralysis in Parliament that risks there being no Brexit.

'When will you come back if you lose?'

• Our intention has always been to respond quickly and provide certainty on the way forward in the event that the vote doesn't pass, both in terms of setting out our next steps and any subsequent vote, and that is what we will do.

'Alternative EU Withdrawal Bill from MPs if the vote doesn't pass?'

1. Clearly any attempt to prevent the Government from meeting all the legal conditions for an orderly exit at this moment of historic significance is extremely concerning.
2. There is obviously a lot of talk of what MPs may or may not do in Parliament.
3. But right now the focus is on winning the vote today.

'Why is it important that the Government controls the business?'

• It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that allows MPs to scrutinise Government, whilst allowing the Government to pursue its legislative agenda.
• Any attempt to change how and when business is arranged could threaten the ability of the Government to deliver on the referendum result, its manifesto commitments and entire legislative program, therefore undermining its ability to govern.
• It would also be binding on future governments.

'Why is no Brexit more likely?'

• While no deal remains a serious risk, having observed events at Westminster over the last seven days, we now believe that the more likely outcome is a paralysis in Parliament that risks there being no Brexit.

'DUP says scaremongering over NI in no deal?'

• We will do everything in our power, whatever the circumstances, to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
• This is about practicality for businesses and people - no border doesn't happen simply because people say 'well, we won't have a border'.

'Rise of far-right extremism if no Brexit?'

• We would enter unchartered territory should the vote on the deal not pass through the House, which would risk dividing the country.
• We're focused on winning the vote that would bring the country back together again.

'Letter from Conservatives ex-Minister says WTO exit better?'

• This deal gives us an unprecedented economic relationship with the EU and keeps us safe with the broadest security partnership in the EU's history.
• We can do better than trading under WTO rules, which would mean tariffs and quotas on British goods going to the EU.

BREXIT - LEFT RIGHT IN OUT UP DOWN

Although my poor ant brain has a bit of dystopian fungal infection, I still struggle on, trying to make sense of the world.  I find myself inescapably swept off my feet by the powerful vortex of the current political storm.

When the EU referendum was announced I was against leaving the EU in the manner proposed.  The pro-Brexit characters and narrative were largely ignorant, brutish, self serving, and evidently deceptive.  Leaving the EU would be parochial and seriously problematic.  I didn't vote because I couldn't but certainly would have voted Remain.

This Brexit issue, the Trump phenomenon, and the current unrest in France are all illustrating that the old notions of simple binary polarisation in politics will no longer work as a functional collective discourse.  I suspect this is one of the benefits of the information age in spite of the fact we are struggling to understand or handle it.

Neoliberalism is our current biggest political problem.  At a glance the US, the UK, France, and Israel are pathologically neoliberal and, in that respect, form a very coherent alliance even if not written on paper.  It must be noted also that the IMF largely rules the EU and is also neoliberal, except they are the only ones to have admitted it and commented on its failures.  As such I would always tend to want to extract myself from the bureaucratic megalith that is the cumbersome EU.

It has always been my view that as humans we have to cooperate.  Other people have other opinions but my view is as stated.  The benefits of the EU are the number of rules and regulations that moderate and ease our cooperation as separate countries.  The problems with the EU are that it operates under authoritarian, hierarchical, and capitalist paradigms.  This means that internally there are seriously harmful relationships.  Greece being perhaps the most readily obvious example.  Ideally, with respect to the EU, the UK neither wants to be subsumed into a mega state nor to be detrimentally ostracised.

Within the UK there has been a frightening and damaging alignment with neoliberalism since the 1980s at least.  From 1979 the Tories have been in power with an avowed allegiance to neoliberalism except for a few years of Labour led by Blair who was and is an advocate for neoliberalism.  This results in a hierarchical structure of rule makers and rule takers resulting in a one way flow of economic advantage.  The UK is evidencing the catastrophic effects of these policies.  They are disguised for the unwary under statistical benefits such as the average national income.  It does take at least two brain cells to recognise that if 1 person gets £1 million pounds and 99 people get £1 that the average income, £10,000.99, is a fatal distortion of the reality of most people's lives.  So, statistically, the UK can be doing very well whilst the majority are in a critical state of penury.  Even mega corporations are beginning to realise the fallacy of this situation.

It would be beneficial for the UK to extract itself from the neoliberal controls and constraints of the EU if; 1, the UK ceases to adhere to the neoliberal ideology and becomes more internally equitable, and 2, the UK maintains cooperative and equitable relations with the EU.  It would be seriously detrimental for the UK to leave the EU so that the UK political elite can ramp up their neoliberal ideology.

Tories are inherently master servant orientated.  They believe it works.  Their approach to leaving the EU is arrogant and demanding.  The result will be an isolated Britain ruled by neoliberals.  Some of the political elite like this scenario; it will benefit them.  But there is no serious political opinion that it will benefit the people of the UK.  The very best that anyone can find to say is that we'll cope, and we might do quite well.  And it is quite disturbing to realise that the Tories only have one way to manage a difficult situation and we have seen the consequences of that.  The first thing they will do is ramp up their attempts to align with the US.  I'll say no more on that.

Labour has experienced a sea change since Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn.  That sea change has been a shift from the harmful effects of capitalism and neoliberalism and the realisation that we can only survive if we start to evolve a way to have a collective and equitable whole society conversation.  I unequivocally agree with that perspective.  That does mean listening to people you disagree with and trying to understand different people's different concerns.  It is precisely not about binary decisions and winning or losing.  A Labour exit from the EU would maintain most of the cooperative benefits whilst asserting the UK's ability to self determination.  In an ideal world that would clearly be a good thing.

A Tory exit from the EU would be an unmitigated disaster.

A Labour exit from the EU offers serious potential to extract ourselves from the IMF's undemocratic diktats and the heavyweight bureaucratic constraints of the cumbersome EU whilst maintaining many of the cooperative benefits.

If we remain in the EU we at least prevent the disruption of a disastrous exit and maintain all the benefits that we currently enjoy.

Either way there is still the fundamental question of the political hierarchy of the UK.  In over simplified terms we have a choice between the Tories or Labour.  I tend to avoid aligning myself with Parties because it is defining and limiting but I am 100% against the Tories.  They cannot see past analogising an individual's way to make money from the general rules for society.  They are wedded to a competitive and very harmful game of musical chairs with people's lives.  It is a priority for the survival of the majority of people in Britain to get rid of the Tories as soon as possible.  Given Labour's fundamental return to socialist principles and their avowed disowning of anything neoliberal then they are not only the best way to get rid of the Tories but they are a good way too.

On this level of discussion the options are: Tory Brexit, Tory Remain, Labour Brexit, or Labour Remain.  Neither I, nor the majority of people in the UK, can survive much more of the Tories.  It is therefore imperative to fight to get a Labour government into Parliament above probably everything else at the moment.  So any attempt to split the Labour Party over the issue of the EU is extremely dangerous and plays into the hands of the neoliberal and Tory vultures currently drooling on the edge of the current mayhem.

There is a lot of disinformation and confusion at the moment.  One or two points need clarifying.  Corbyn has been consistent in his views about the disadvantages of abdicating control to Europe and the advantages of cooperative actions with the EU.  He advocated and voted to Remain in the referendum.  He is pro-Europe.  He is also not a dictator and the Labour Party has had conferences and votes which have led to their current position.  In that respect he represents a party that by majority decision prefers to leave the EU under a Labour government.  There is a caveat to this and an important one.  A caveat that you would never get from the Tories as has been disgustingly illustrated over their disturbing resistance to allow a parliamentary vote on any proposed deal.  That caveat is that any agreement gained and proposed by the Labour government has to pass the Labour Party's internal voting system AND has to go to parliament to be approved.  It follows that if Corbyn cannot get a deal that is approved by the people of this country that article 50 will be revoked.  There is no such position with the Tories.  And that is what will hopefully bring them down.  But it is so important not to conflate the Tory/Labour binary with the Brexit/Remain binary.

First get rid of the Tories.  Then sort out this EU issue.  Any other approach is going to send this country into an inescapable maelstrom of decline and destruction.  I've said it before and it is a bit extreme but the danger is that the wealthy will live in a fortified London and the home counties whilst the rest of the country will become like the West Bank and Gaza.  They have the technology, they have the experience, they have the intention.  Why wouldn't it happen?

If you are feeling slightly voiceless do not vote for the Tory oppressors who will promise you everything and deliver nothing.  Support the Labour movement, support the opposition to the Tory Brexit plan, and support the best efforts to resolve the EU problem the best way we can.

A Labour Brexit is quite the opposite of a Tory Brexit.

BREXIT DEAL IN 60 SECONDS

BREXIT DEAL IN 60 SECONDS
(or: A Pact with the Devil)

There is obviously a lot of work going into Theresa May's public relations interface.  Every time I log on to Twitter I see a post from her account.  Today I saw a Tweet "The Brexit deal explained" with a 60 second video.  The video is a simplified bullet point list of 10 items.  To be specific there are 11 items but I think the first could be called the heading.

I am appalled when I see this kind of overt deception.  I was brought up by Conservatives and I swear I cannot feel sure that they are aware of how deceitful they are being.  I have a tendency to imagine they actually think they believe what they are saying.  And I mean that I 'imagine' because it doesn't sit well with me.  Something isn't right when I imagine them believing what they say.  It feels to me that no coherent neurological network could feel an inner equilibrium with the ideas they present sitting together in one brain.  I do, however, think that they are stupid enough to believe themselves.  They are dead enough, dull enough, anaesthetised enough, to blunder on, insisting they know what they are doing as they lurch and stagger about, whilst all the objective evidence is clear they are just frightened individuals attempting to appear to know what they are doing for fear of being told off, ostracised, punished, or even killed.  This is what authoritarianism does, it bends and distorts your brain until it no longer functions correctly.  That is why these Tories are all incapable of thinking imaginatively or even truthfully.

I thought I would at least give the video a fair trial.  I tend to avoid the toxic vitriol emanating from this Tory Government and all those who think in stereotypical conformist union with them.  They have done a lot of damage to my brain already and I seriously need to limit the damage.

Here are the header and 10 bullet points in the video:

The Brexit Deal explained in 60 seconds.
⚫ Ending free movement once and for all, with a new skills-based immigration system.
⚫ A free trade area with the EU for goods, with no tariffs, which protects jobs.
⚫ No more sending vast sums of money to the EU, meaning we can spend it on our NHS.
⚫ The end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK, meaning we control our own laws.
⚫ Protecting the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU.
⚫ The ability to strike trade deals with other countries.
⚫ A close relationship on defence, tackling crime and terrorism to keep people safe.
⚫ Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy.
⚫ Leaving on the 29th March 2019, with a good deal for every part of the UK.
⚫ Now is the time to come together to build a brighter future.

I will deal with each one individually.

The Brexit Deal explained in 60 seconds.
So I started watching.  I was interested and even amused that there was a timer ticking down in the top right corner of the screen and I am naive enough to imagine that since it started at 60 they would be right that this video was 60 seconds long.  Well, I haven't timed it and I am not going to, but I would not be surprised to find that they stretched it and every second counted down is actually 1.1 seconds of real time because I have well over half a century of experience of their relentless greed.  I was amused also that the timer starts after this header.  I have to concede that is fair.

⚫ Ending free movement once and for all, with a new skills-based immigration system.
That has to be a bad start for me.  I know there are rather thoughtless, parochial, and even unkind people who think of the 'other' as undesirable and so ending free movement is interpreted as ending 'their' free movement.  A good technique for analysing the significance, meaning, and value of many assertions is to swap them around and to see how they look if you change the gender, the age, the subject etc.  So "ending free movement" is simply dreadful per se.  Ending it "once and for all" is dictatorial and monstrously oppressive.  This is typical codification from self-centred control freaks.  They are actually telling you and me, and those who think they agree with them, that they are going to stop our free movement.  It is a convoluted message and only fools fall for it.  At best it assumes the reader believes themselves to be in the same team; at worst it is a clear message of what they intend for the future.  And the second half of the statement is as sick as they come.  Skills-based immigration is inhumane and will afford privilege to those who currently have some benefit for the Tories.  Not only is it destructively prejudicial, it should also be clear that it dismisses those with less to offer who already reside here.  So if you are British you will be sidelined, put out, dismissed, invalidated, by an onslaught of preferred gift bearers, sycophants, and worshippers of the Tories.  Oh yes, we so live in a Christian culture; an Old Testament Christian culture.  Skills based immigration is not only overtly inhuman it will also have a negative effect on wages and current residents internal employment opportunities.  If you are sick, disabled, under educated, old or otherwise less than perfect you are not worth much by these standards.

⚫ A free trade area with the EU for goods, with no tariffs, which protects jobs.
I don't know enough details about the current legislation to comment in any detail but the attitude is foreboding.  I notice it does not say "goods and services" which worried me in a service based economy.  It does sound like an appeasing platitude rather than a meaningful communication.

⚫ No more sending vast sums of money to the EU, meaning we can spend it on our NHS.
I simply don't believe the implication of the first part let alone the evidently false claim in the second part.  Most money sent to the EU comes back in one form or another.  Simple things like controlled airspace are paid into for the benefit of all and to opt out of the club, so to speak, leaves you paying individually for the collective benefit of those still in the club.  But the complications of the net payments in and out are beyond me but the last part of the sentence is evidently a lie.  First of all it actually suggests that all of the money saved can go into the NHS which is nonsense.  Secondly the Tories have long term plans to privatise the NHS and have treated it as their own personal cash cow for all the time they have been in Government.  They are lying again.  They will not even put back what they have stolen and who could be naive enough to imagine they would also start funding it properly.  In fact it is probably impossible for them to put right the damage they have done.

⚫ The end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK, meaning we control our own laws.
Need I comment?  This was the earth shaking statement that struck terror into my heart.  This is THE statement hidden in plain sight.  This IS the declaration of intent.  I know this in my soul.  The Tories have already destroyed the fabric of British Justice.  The Law Society, groups of Judges and Barristers, and numerous analysts and observers have spoken out about the damage being done by Tory policies so I need not pour out lots of supporting evidence since it is there to be found in ample supply on the internet.  The Tories persistently make laws to benefit themselves and to remove justice from the poor.  That is what they do, and they will not change.  This is the prize they are drooling over.  This is what bothers me about what are sometimes described as knuckle dragging thugs who support the Tories.  Are there not enough suicidal and homeless ex-soldiers to illustrate how the Tories treat the gullible who, albeit in good faith, think they are being honourable to serve the masters of this country.  I don't have a final view on the pros and cons of the army but I do know the Tories have never been honourable towards those in their own team.  They are as vile to their own as they are to those they subjugate abroad.  I can only imagine the less well off who support the Tories are deluded enough that they think their masters will look after them.  History informs us otherwise, as should anyone's heart.  If for no other reason anyone should oppose May's deal for this reason.  There is an overt and conscious intent to take over this country as a dictatorship.  They'll be more sensible than to rename the post of Prime Minister as the post of Führer but it is the construct they intend to manifest.

⚫ Protecting the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU.
That is simply laughable.  The European Court of Justice was a serviceable protection and they want rid of that with promises they will do the same.  No - there is no previous evidence and they will not protect people's rights in the future.  One wonders why they included what should be self evident as a benefit in a 60 second summary.

⚫ The ability to strike trade deals with other countries.
As far as I understand it there is no effective obstruction to independent trade deals from within the EU so one is left wondering what fire we might be jumping into as we jump out of the supposed frying pan of the EU.  This feels like flack and waffle.  Given only 60 seconds to summarise the most complex legislation this Government has attempted this indicates they neither know what they are doing nor do they intend to divulge their real intentions.

⚫ A close relationship on defence, tackling crime and terrorism to keep people safe.
That is just another feeble attempt to sooth the more anxious in society.  Without any doubt they are causing net damage to the cooperative actions of defence and policing across Europe.  So at best this should read that they intend to mitigate and reduce the damage caused rather than presenting it as a plus.  So this is quite obviously a negative factor.  Again, with only 60 seconds didn't they have more of a constructive nature to report?

⚫ Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy.
Again I am not the expert to comment on this but as the world's ecosystem is collapsing and with all the reports and analysis that I have seen to date this is an attempt to appease whilst being an admission of harm.

⚫ Leaving on the 29th March 2019, with a good deal for every part of the UK.
A meaningless repetition in the age old tradition of repeating something often enough to make people believe it.  And there is no evidence to even suggest it is a good deal for 'every part' of the UK.  Quite the opposite is already evidenced to be the case.

⚫ Now is the time to come together to build a brighter future.
This is a trite attempt to imitate genuine collective feelings and views.  The phrase "for the many not the few" evolved out of the left of the Labour Party because it was how people were feeling.  This is more typical Tory attempt to imitate what appears to them to be successful for their opponents.  They simply don't understand.  It is sickeningly saccharine and disgustingly tacky from the woman who created the 'harsh environment'.

SUMMARY

Overall I was delighted to see this 60 second summary because I was afraid they could find 60 seconds worth of actual benefits and improvements to report.  But instead it is full of transparent deception, overt distraction, and meaningless pretence.  I am now convinced that May's 'Deal' would be a crime and a disaster.  Whatever Labour might negotiate would necessarily be better than the Tory's hard line, ruthless, protectionist, and, frankly, fascist deal.  Failing that we might have to stay in the EU.  But we cannot safely leave on May's terms.

HAPPY EASTER

I hate politics.  The painful irony of that is that one cannot feel so passionately about something one doesn't care about.  And that is possibly why I hate it so much.  I love people.  People are lovely.  Even the worst ones are vulnerable, feeling, passionate, creatures.  It all goes wrong when they harm you of course.  When they harm you personally it is bad enough but when they violate your love and compassion for life by desecrating some innocent child in front of your eyes it becomes intolerable.  A raging fire of fury rises up inside to oppose the malevolent force and to vanquish the vile transgression of everything you hold dear.  I am no stranger to intense anger at the profane injustices committed by corpses that still think they are alive.  And so we have politics; the art of fucking up an otherwise reasonable situation.

I have found it interesting that Jeremy Corbyn's initials are the same as those of an old friend of mine from 2,000 years ago.  It has always struck me that JC consistently puts himself at the front line of opposition to injustices both locally and internationally.  He is appreciated by many as a gentle man of honour and integrity.  I suspect that he is not ambitious in the normally presumed interpretation of that word and has little personal interest in being such a high profile figure let alone the leader of the opposition to HM Gov in the UK.  What I imagine he is ambitious about is justice and peace.  So far both JC's seem to have a lot in common.

I notice recently that the press have been putting words into his mouth.  Even to the extreme extent of the "Stupid Woman Gate" fiasco.  It has been conclusively demonstrated that he mouthed "stupid people" and anyway it should never have been an issue in the first place.  An irony never mentioned is how so many people were so quick to accuse him of what was clearly in their minds for them to have interpreted his lips as mouthing "stupid woman".  But that that issue could dominate the airwaves, even above an implausible drone attack on Gatwick, is juvenile and fatuous in the extreme.  Whilst May and her cohorts are performing very real and very dangerous fascist Nazi pantomime tricks in disguise, the public fall for the narrative projected by the main stream media, and hardly notice they are a substantial part of the problem.

Now I am suddenly hearing louder and louder anger and vitriol polarising around the false constructs of right and left politics and the leave and remain camps as if there is some coherent correlation between them.  Yet it doesn't take much awareness of recent history to see that they have very little common ground or relationship.

I sometimes see it as school children with an abusive teacher who always blames the head teacher and asks the class if they want to get rid of the head teacher as if that will shut them up and reinforce a status quo that suits the teacher.  Unfortunately for teacher the kids were ignorant of the details of the administrative hierarchy and were persuaded by irresponsible rabble rousers to oust the head teacher.  The teacher now sees this as an emerging opportunity to garner more personal power for their abusive treatment of their class of contemptible urchins.  The kids didn't realise that the head teacher was possibly a moderating influence on the teacher, much as the whole situation was evidently unsatisfactory.  What the kids did want, in the main, was to eject the unaccountable abusive dictators from the stage whatever their position or title.

All of my life experience to date informs me that this is not going to end well.  But strangely I am not without hope.  Going back to the comparisons between the two JCs I notice the crowd are now baying for JC's crucifixion.  Although many people decry the media because it is untrustworthy they still choose to believe the deliberately provocative sound bites and rise up in indignation and fear.  Sound bites that claim JC plans to leave the EU and JC won't allow a people's vote.  Suddenly the frightened people are literally calling JC treacherous for not saving their sorry souls.  Biblical or fucking what?

I have yet to see any substantial or convincing report of JC's views that confirm the above examples of  manipulative fear mongering.  JC possibly believes we should not, ideally, be in the EU and on that account he might be right.  It is worth remembering that he promoted and voted for remaining in the EU at the referendum because he believed it was the best way forward from that point in time.  The EU is a difficult, and sometimes unaccountable, political monster.  The EU is largely controlled by the IMF and the IMF is essentially neoliberal and extremely authoritarian and hierarchically oppressive.  A problem with the UK leaving the EU is that the UK government is clearly unaccountable, neoliberal, extremely authoritarian, and hierarchically oppressive. 

Suddenly and dramatically leaving the EU is most certainly a destructive act.  It might be possible, given the right time span, to renegotiate our arrangements and to withdraw from the less productive aspects of the relationship.  It is criminal that the Tories have had the best part of three years to negotiate and have essentially done nothing.  I imagine this is due to many factors including an inherent disbelief and a profound sense of denial.  Tories are essentially polarising adversarial competitive beasts and negotiations must have been akin to looking in a mirror.  Both sides probably became distracted by preening their own reflections.

We are currently in a catastrophic situation precipitated entirely by the dysfunctional Tory Party and their neoliberal fascist policies.  I suspect May and her cohorts have never managed to negotiate anything because they cannot imagine anything independent of the EU.  Hierarchical thugs are inherently cowards and rely on sycophantically gaining their bosses approval.  Take their boss away and they have no idea how to independently act responsibly.  Lord of the Flies springs to mind since Golding's novel was intentionally countering the rather banal self delusion represented in Ballantyne's novel The Coral Island.  Corbyn has made it clear that he will strongly oppose May's 'deal' and doesn't accept a 'no deal' exit from Europe.  He has also stated that from this point in time, given where we are, he would immediately go back to Brussels to attempt to get a better deal.  No one has made it explicit but this would include a holding position giving significant time to negotiate complex details.  This is not very far removed from putting 'Brexit' on hold.  And need I emphasise that he has not excluded the possibility that if he couldn't get a satisfactory arrangement that he would rescind Article 50.

But the public, the baying crowd, the frightened mob, daren't pause to think and seem to react to the smallest most succinct uncomplicated sound bite.  "Are you 'for' or 'against'?"  Corbyn is refusing to have words put into his mouth but too many of the public are happy to read and believe those words he has never uttered.  Corbyn has probably been the most consistently respectful politician to both leave and remain voters.  Corbyn maintains a perspective on the broader issues and the profound underlying forces in the political landscape.  Corbyn remains clear that whoever we have alliances with, whatever arrangements for trade we have, however we negotiate, we must always do it with the wellbeing of the population in mind.  He is clear this is the point of the negotiations.  This is why he doesn't polarise issues into winning or losing but remains focused on getting the best outcome for the people.

What we are being forced to confront is whether we, as a population, want consensual negotiated self governance and responsibility or do we want to remain irresponsible and hope some power structure or corporate interest will govern and control us.  I certainly do not want to leave the EU only to be ruled by an inhumane, neoliberal, dysfunctional, out of control, right wing, Tory Party.  I doubt leaving the EU dramatically now would bring anything but chaos and pain.  I would vote to remain in the EU if there were another opportunity.  But give me a genuine socialist system of collective governance in the UK I would prefer not to be dragged along with the imperial, capitalistic, neoliberal, out of control, European Union.  How to negotiate a different arrangement is beyond the scope of this missive.

It is not the idea of being out of Europe that frightens me.  It is being wretchedly dominated by inhumane neoliberal monsters that frightens me.  So in order of priority we need to get the Labour Party into government with Corbyn as Prime Minister and we need to rearrange our relationship with the EU.  So far I don't see that being a very different view from that espoused by JC.  But will the hysterical crowd vote for Barabbas or Jeremy Corbyn?