Patriotism

Patriotism

What is it? Some seem to think it is being willing to die for their country. But, as American general George Patton said, that wasn't your duty; your duty was to see that some other poor bastard did for his country. So it's not about giving your life. It quite possibly is about feelings of belonging and even affection and loyalty to a country in which you have lived a largely successful and happy life (if that is what you have done). What it most certainly means, if you feel patriotic, is that you want the best of outcomes in any situation for your country of allegiance.

We have to be careful here for, as Samuel johnson pointed out »patriotism is the last refuge of a rogue». (Much the same, I think, could be said of appeals to democracy). In other words, appeals to patriotism can be a desperate act of someone who has no other argument to other in his/her cause. So, with that in mind, who in Britain's current political situation wants the best outcome for Britain and who is making spurious appeals to patriotism (or democracy)?

A number of polls now show that the UK population is largely in favour of remaining in the EU, as high as 60% in favour of remaining. All Leave advocates now accept that the UK will suffer through Brexit, for different numbers of decades. So what should a patriot hope for? I can think of only one reasonable answer: that the UK should remain in the EU, to avoid damage to the UK. That would be the most popular and most patriotic decision.

But that option is apparently not on the table. Why? Why would an elected Parliament refuse to consider the most popular and patriotic vote?

The only answer I can think of is that patriotism is not the issue. There have to be other issues. What could the other issues be? Clearly, they have to be either personal issues among the power brokers or party political issues. Who stands to gain, because it is obviuosly not the country? The motivations can only be a question of debate but how can a situation arise in which an elected Parliament decides across the board to act against the interest of the population whose interests it is supposed to represent?

I don't want to go into what the personal or political motivations might be (although I have strong views on them) or indeed to the patenntly spurious appeals to patriotism and democracy. All I want to note here is that a democratic Parliament that overtly rejects the clear view of its population is in an untenable, hence unstable situation. There has to be a revolt, although it is very unlikely to be a bloody revolution in the UK. Many politicians in the UK must foresee this and what they decide to do about it will shape their futures (as I am sure they are aware) as well as that of the citizens of the UK. Revolutions, even peaceful ones, tend to produce notable casualties. Many politicians must be asking themselves who will be called upon to answer for what will follow.

The Manipulative Society

The Manipulative Society

People supposedly seek facts, the truth, whatever. They do so to understand their situation, quite naturally: who wouldn't want to understand the situation they were in, what could threaten them, what might be to their advantage? So does society, which is what individuals collectively form, help or hinder that understanding? Currently, in the UK as often elsewhere, I conclude that it does not. Society, which is simply a collective of individuals in a given area, seems to me to conspire against the individual's goal of achieving understanding of their own situation. How can that be and why; why should society conspire against its own constituents; who could benefit from that?

I believe the problem lies in the area of the facts, the truth whatever. These are crucial to an individual's understanding of their situation. In a democratic society, the individual has a vote; how can that individual place that vote so that it reflects their interests if they don't have the information to know what those interests are? So who, and with what resources, is going after the information they need?

There are branches of Academe designed specifically to seek them. Philosophy is one seeker after truth but, after Wittgenstein, there's probably not a lot of hope there. Science is another. The problem with science is that it is (understandably) shy of facts. It is a popular fallacy that science establishes facts; what science will say is that a given proposition accords with all known facts or evidence but yet may not, in a genuinely universal, extra galactic, context, be true. Nonetheless, science is very good at showing what is demonstrably not true or liable to be false.

How does that help truth seekers? Not a lot, but it does expose fantasies, and it must be said that the resources behind such endeavours are not very considerable.

What about the other side, the side that might like to obscure facts and the truth, for gain of some sort? Well, there is the whole of the huge advertising and publicity industries for example, whose sole purpose is to persuade and to sell, whatever the facts of the matter. They legitimately sell, by popular consent, cars, toothpaste, soap or whatever, but also what else? Truth is irrelevant to them but they do deal in fantasies. Then there is the huge media industry, whose function is supposedly not just to entertain but also to inform. So what information should the media give? The facts (as currently known)? That is possible but virtually all the media are owned by people who have views and agendas. So why shouldn't they express their opinions and try to implement their agendas through their media, for their own gain? As of course they do. So we have a society in which resources are largely geared not to truth and facts but to manipulation and individual gain. The owners of the manipulative industries can (and do?) persuade individuals to act against their own individual interest.

Where does that leave the individual trying to assess their own situation, looking for facts, truth? I think that leaves the individual very much on their own, with only their own brain to assess the almost certainly biased information being fed to them. “Society” can offer no help. Probably their only help is the realisation that what is being fed to them as ”true” information is almost certainly biased. Does the society's educational system help, teach people to think for themselves? Or does it teach them to think and learn by rote? I think these are questions that any healthy society, any society that values the welfare of its citizens, should ask itself. And so should the citizens themselves.

(ollow The Money (And Ambitions)-

Follow The Money (And The Ambitions)

A clue was given to the Watergate reporters that eventually resolved the case. «Follow the money». I suspect (totally believe) the same may reveal the motivation of the hard Brexit proponents. Many leading proponents have already made money out of Brexit and also made sure that they and their interests remain in the EU. They stand to gain from a hard Brexit; too bad for the country.

Leave that aside for the moment. As both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have consistently refused to answer the question as to whether they think the UK would be better off in the EU we can easily conclude that it would be. So the UK is going to be worse off. Leave that aside too for the moment.

The EU is now reportedly going to make a determined effort to offer a deal to the UK (in the absence of anything sensible coming from the other side) , a deal being reported as possibly «exceptional». That would avoid a «no deal» Brexit damaging to both sides. If a proposal emerges, what are the chances of the UK accepting it?

Any proposed deal will split the Conservative party, with the hard-liners against it. I don't know what the numbers are but maybe 1/3-2/3. It will also most probably split the Labour party, depending on the exact terms. Continuation in the Customs Union, which would resolve the Ireland border problem (and thus a most likely item in the proposal), would be unacceptable (so he says) to Jeremy Corbyn, What then would be the split in the Labour party? Again, I have no numbers, even less in this case, but it could well be the converse of the split in the Conservative party, 2/3-1/3, or slightly more favourable to Corbyn.

So what happens if it comes to a vote in Parliament? I don't know more than anybody else. What I do know is that, if this test comes before Parliament, it will clearly show which MPs value limiting the damage of Brexit to their country above personal financial and political ambitions..

The Brexit Fiction

The Brexit Fiction

Politicians of both of the UK's main political parties are maintaining that Brexir must happen because they said that the result of the EU referendum would be definitive. That is indeed what they said, despite the fact that all the legislation around the referendum clearly stated that the result could be only advisory. Have you ever known politicians change their mind, their stance on an issue? Who hasn't? So why not change their minds on Brexit. They can't??????…...Empty phrases such as "the will of the people" are used by both sides to maintain this fiction, homage to Orwell. Yet the leaders of the main political parties remain clinging to this Brexit fiction despite overwhelming evidence that Brexit will significantly harm the UK, as indeed a large majority of those same politicians said before the referendum. So, the UK's political leaders are determined to harm the UK. Why?

In the case of Theresa May the situation is obvious: she is trying to hold together a political party that is split in two anyway and will quite surely sooner or later split asunder. She's looking for a temporary fix, as with the DUP alliance. Any withdrawal agreement with the EU will split her party asunder; a «no deal» Brexit will lose her party its traditional commercial and industrial support and possibly make it unelectable, given the consequences, for a generation. (That would of course depend on the opposition response). Anyway, she can't win; she's hanging on.

The case of Jeremy Corbyn is slightly more complex. Asked in a recent interview, six times, whether he thought the UK would be better off in the EU, he six times refused to answer the question. Conclusion? He knows the UK would be better off inside the EU but doesn't want that. So what does he want? No one seems to know but he is a Marxist dogmatist so presumably that has something to do with Marxist dogma. At the moment, he is in a position to potentially bury his political opposition for a generation (what political leader could ask for more?) but apparently doesn't want that. He wants to maintain the Brexit fiction.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us, I think, in a situation where the principal political leaders, for their own political reasons, want to ensure that the UK is damaged one way or another. Maintaining the Brexit fiction ensures this and suits both main political party leaders. But isn't democracy supposed to ensure the welfare of the majority of people; which apparently can't happen in this case. So whither democracy in the UK?

Brexit: Current Thoughts

Brexit: Resume Of Current Thoughts

I've been reluctntly coming to the conclusion that a «hard» Brexit has to be the most likely outcome unless…...……………..

I'll take you through the thinking process. Firstly, May can't agree anything by herself; the best she can do is come up with a proposal that she thinks will be acceptable to the EU. Secondly, Barnier can't agree anything by himself; the most he can do is get from May a proposal he thinks may be acceptable to the EU. What if that happens? If I understand the process correctly, the proposal has then to go to the EU Parliament and to each of the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries, each of which has an individual veto. The proposal could get through but I wonder what odds any bookmaker would give on it doing so. I doubt that the odds would be attractive.

How did we get into this situation and how can we get out of it? We got into it undoubtedly because two years of supposed negotiations have achieved nothing. I say «supposed» because I believe, although I can't prove it, that chief UK negotiator David Davis never had any intention of coming to any agreement; I believe (and again can't prove it) that he wanted and intended a «hard» Brexit.. He has been criticised in some of the media for laziness and lack of preparedness but I believe that was intentional on his part. With accusations of treason popular in the UK gutter press re opposition to Brexit, where does agreeing to undertake an assignment intending to defeat it come?Anyway, the result is that we have run out of time.

So what can be done to recover the situation? A «hard» Brexit would, by general consent, be catastrophic for the UK economy in the short to medium term but also noticeably damage the EU economy, so neither side really wants that. What could happen (a forlorn hope?) is that May goes to the EU, lays her cards on the table and says something like «we are in a mess and need more time to sort this; can we have more time?». What would the likely EU response be? I suspect the EU would take a hard line and say that the UK is either in or out in March next year and the UK has to decide on that. The UK would then be faced with two choices: face a «hard» Brexit and its consequences or vote to stay in the EU for the moment, (by no means certain to get UK Parliamentary approval) and face a probable second referendum.

An alternative, of course, is that some agreement is reached over the next 6 months that meets approval in the UK Parliament, the EU Parliament and the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries.

It's not a pretty picture but that is how I see it at the moment.

To Hell With The Country, Party Poltical Power Politics Rule

To Hell With The Country, Party Political Power Politics Rule

The news that Theresa May has taken personal charge of the Brexit negotiations I take to be a good sign, in as far as anything concerned with Brexit can be termed good. It hadn't occurred to me before but a possible reason that negotiations with the EU have been going nowhere is that that is precisely what the hard-line Brexiteers intended: a no-deal exit. That, as is generally acknowledged, would be catastrophic for British commerce and industry, traditional supporters of the Conservative party, in the short to medium term (20-50 years even in the estimation of arch-Brexiteer Rees-Mogg?) and Theresa May is unwilling to lose that support. Hence her take-over of the negotiations. What then happens, as some kind of deal acceptable to the EU makes its appearance in Parliament, is anyone's guess. Much will depend on the attitude of Labour's Corbyn to any proposed deal, and since he is off with fairies on a cloud somewhere above his ivory tower, that too has to be anyone's guess. The eventual result, no doubt the crux of the negotiations here on in, is what can be presumed to obtain a majority approval in the British Parliament and be acceptable to the EU.

What should be abundantly clear in all this is that the welfare of Britain is the least of concerns of anyone in power in the UK. Prognosticators on all sides seem to agree that Brexit will damage the UK and that is OK with both of the main political parties. All previous appeals to patriotism, sovereignty, taking control, etc, can now been seen as in truth the window-dressing they always were. What is at stake for the politicians is not the country but their power in the party political battle. With the British public presented with a choice between political extremes of right and left, and no one of significance in the middle, moderate ground, the interests of the country can go hang.

I find that very sad. In practical terms, it may (or may not, depending on the eventual outcome), matter to me very much, but our children and grandchildren will have to live with the result of a purely temporary, sordid little party political power struggle. And it looks as though nobody in political power in the UK, the guardians of the country's welfare, cares.

Brexit Update

Brexit Update

Oh the irony of it! Cameron promised a referendum on the EU in 2016 to avoid a split in the Conservative party and the referendum has become the cause of that split. The circus clowns were going to have their day anyway and now they are having it. Boris Johnson is right in one respect: May's Brexit proposals please no one, neither those who voted Remain nor a considerable proportion of those who voted Leave. It must be obvious to a blind man that there is now no real desire on the part of the British people for any realistic form of Brexit. The right-wing fantasies, given sway by chicanery and probable electoral fraud, have been exposed as such. So what poliician now can, with a straight face, call the referendum result «the will of the people»?

It is very difficult not to conclude that the will of the people now is, albeit perhaps reluctantly, to stay in the EU. Politicians rightly say that they should represent the will of the people but how many of them will represnt that will now? How many of them will have the courage to put the welfare of the country and its peoples' wishes before their own political ambitions? We will see over the coming weeks.