Patronising Electronics

Today I have taken delivery of a new car - minus a "Euro" plate. It's the same model as before but as expected with newer cars there are one or two tweaks and "improvements" that have taken place over the years. In this instance most of the changes as far as I can see are refinements to save costs and money - and there are some changes like an absence of a spare wheel which are presumably to improve the car's fuel economy by saving weight.

With the evolution of electronics and computers, we often find that they have moved on from being useful tools to help us into ones that provide useless and superfluous functions all in the spirit of marketing. Digital cameras, mobiles, televisions and DVD players all suffer from this affliction, usually to the extent where a line gets crossed into the territory of being patronising.

And so it proves with my new car - the dashboard display helpfully informs me when to change gear. One wonders why I bothered with a driving licence, or passing my test, when a car now tells me how to drive. Nothing makes my point better than this lifted directly from the car's manual:

"Upshift"... is shown as a symbol in the Driver Information Centre with Uplevel Display (what?) or Uplevel-Combi-Display (again what?), when upshifting is recommended for fuel saving reasons". 

Apparently this new feature is known as "EcoFlex drive assistant".

Well thanks chaps, all I need now is a YouTube tutorial on how to open a can of beer as well. Thank God I don't have to think for myself anymore.

Magna Carta Day

June 15th 1215 was the day the Magna Carta was signed (in English "The Great Charter" in case Cameron is reading this blog and still doesn't know what it means). To celebrate, the Freedom Association organised a day long river trip on Saturday up the Thames from Windsor to Runnymede which I happily partook in. To my slight shame I'd never been before so here was an opportunity to see the historic spot for myself. Here's a couple of personal photos from the day:

Disappointingly it's made clear that the memorial was erected by the American Bar Association. It begs the sad question why a monument to mark such a important moment in English history was not funded by ourselves. At times like this one has sympathy with Bill Bryson's view in his book; Notes From A Small Island:

"It sometimes occurs to me that the British have more heritage than is good for them..."

We essentially take it for granted.

"If You Fail To Plan Then You Plan To Fail"

Passing by without too much of a murmur south of the border is the Scottish independence referendum due to be held in September of next year. The relatively lack of comment is in direct contrast to the significant implications for the rest of the UK should the Scots wish to go it alone, not least on the thorny issue of the EU; would a breakup of the UK make our EU membership null and void? I've not heard a convincing answer on that one yet.

That aside, the referendum campaign has thrown up some interesting parallels to a potential EU referendum post 2015 and some lessons we can learn from. It should be noted first that there are one or two differences; with the except of a couple of forays by Cameron north of the border the Westminster establishment has largely refrained from interference. In addition polls consistently show Scottish voters supporting staying in the union, rather than exiting. Factor in the "don't knows" and the inherent "status quo effect" of around 15%, then it's clear the SNP and Alex Salmond has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. One suspects that Salmond has been forced to call a referendum earlier than he might have wished due to his success of winning a majority in 2011, leaving him little political choice.

Yet the useful parallels are imbued in a campaign that wishes to seek exit from a union it is a member of, a break from the status quo against the wishes of the establishment. Thus using the Scottish referendum as a dry run in anticipation of an EU one, it is immediately clear the effect major errors have on success or otherwise. Throughout it's becoming increasingly apparent that the SNP has no coherent exit plan in place which is compounding their already poor position - their case has been unraveling.

The referendum may have come earlier than Salmond hoped, but he seems remarkably unprepared given that the SNP is a party that has been in existence since 1934, and Salmond has been its leader since 1990 (albeit with a 7 year hiatus between 2000 and 2007).

Perhaps the lack of detail was the reason that Salmond preferred initially to concentrate on a sense of Scottish national identity and patriotism culminating, just before last year's Olympics, in the rather ridiculous phrase Scolympians:

In a bizarre intervention, the First Minister has devised a new group name for the Scottish athletes at the games that studiously avoids any British connotations.

Mr Salmond issued a good luck message urging everyone to cheer on the “Scolympians”, an inelegant combination of the words “Scottish” and “Olympians”.

Earlier this week, he issued a press release congratulating Sir Chris Hoy as being chosen as the Olympic flag-bearer for Team GB without mentioning the team’s name. 

But the scrutiny won't go away nor can it be papered over by vacuous appeals to national identity and scrutiny is what is now happening. For years the SNP has suggested that they received legal advice that an independent Scotland could remain in the EU and as a consequence inherit the UK's opt outs such as the Euro. Salmond went as far as to confirm it categorically (10:30 mins in):

The BBC’s Andrew Neil asked the First Minister on March 4 if he had sought legal advice. Mr Salmond replied: “We have, yes.

But it turns out that was never the case, as the Scottish Sun waded in with the headline "EU Liar":

THE SNP were forced into a humiliating climbdown yesterday after finally admitting the government had never taken legal advice on Scotland’s entry to the EU after independence.

The party’s referendum chief Nicola Sturgeon announced they were dropping a bid to block demands for them to reveal law experts’ guidance.

The Nats’ challenge has already cost taxpayers £12,000 as they battled to keep the details secret.

For a country to split while still being members of the EU would be uncharted territory legally, however many including the EU Commission, are of the opinion that Scotland would have to reapply for membership:

A letter from Mr Barosso to the House of Lords economic committee, which is examining the independence question, also confirmed his position that a new independent state would "become a third country with respect to the EU". 

"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."

Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".

Which then throws up the question of what happens to Scottish exports to the Eurozone while renegotiation was happening, given that they would have no right of access to the Single Market in the meantime as they immediately become a "third country". Exports would simply stop overnight. Such a possible scenario is a damning indictment of the SNP's lack of preparation and as a consequence has been hugely damaging to their cause.

Another big question is what happens to currency. This question has long been a problem for the nationalists. They have at various times supported an independent Scottish currency or even been cheerleaders for membership of the Euro. Currently they have instead settled on a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, a policy that seems to be a hasty response to changing circumstances, not least the Eurozone crisis. In short a least worst option.

But this comes with its own problems. It requires agreement of the rest of the UK and there's no guarantee of that. Also, as the Eurozone is painfully aware, currency union requires political and fiscal union to work. So there would need to be budgetary and fiscal constraints in place, a common system of banking regulation, so that the lender of last resort is not underwriting the debts of financial institutions over which it has no control. The UK will inevitably insist on tight controls on Scotland’s ability to borrow, and on its ability to vary the structure of its taxes. It will be political union in all but name. An independent Scotland would have no influence over the Bank of England but would still effectively be under its control, thus making a mockery of independence. Another ill thought-out policy.

Then there's the issue of the welfare state. A vote to leave the UK would be a vote to leave its institutions, including Department of Work and Pensions and the services it provides. A report backed by SNP ministers warned that pensions are at risk:

The study, by the Scottish Government expert working group on welfare, said creating a new system immediately after independence would be so complex that there would be a “significant” chance claimants would not receive their money.

This would also affect millions of pensioners and welfare claimants in England, the report claimed, because their payments are processed at Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offices in Scotland.

But the report’s authors were forced to admit they did not know how the Scottish benefits system would be administered after [transitional period] because they had too little information about the policies that would be pursued.

The lack of detail means for Salmond that fear, uncertainly and doubt will be the deciding factor in the referendum - dull detail matters, not empty rhetoric. The lack of preparation will put back Scottish independence for generations meaning Mr Salmond, undoubtedly against his wishes, will die a UK citizen. It has turned into a campaign where professionals are knocking seven bells out of the amateurs as Jim Sillars in the Holyrood magazine observed (my emphasis):

These inherent fault lines should have been addressed long before there was any launch of a Yes campaign. The lack of what I call “the Bible” – that is, a document based on asking all the difficult questions and providing the answers, which then delivers solid well researched, intellectually tight material for activists to use – is proving fatal. Currency, EU membership, Nato, pensions both state and private, are but four examples of work not done or sloppy thinking.

Given the woeful performance of the SNP leadership so far, it is a foolish gamble to believe that when they produce the civil service-created White Paper in the autumn, that it will fix things. There needs to be a much wider involvement in the production of a “Bible” without which Westminster will continue setting the agenda and continue to run rings round the Yes side.

It all sounds so wearily familiar, but at least we've been warned. In an EU referendum we also need to provide a "Bible" that answers difficult questions such as the one posed by Autonomous Mind:

On Day One of [unilateral withdrawal] how will British goods will be landed in continental Europe and sold into the EU market.

Otherwise we follow Salmond down the path of glorious failure.

A Weapons-Grade Clown

How anyone takes Alex Jones seriously has always been a mystery to me, further proof if required that the man is an idiot on the BBC's Sunday Politics:



Well at least the BBC will take comfort in interviewing another raving lunatic against the EU thus doing more damage to the 'out' movement by association. Expect more of this the closer we get to a referendum.

Paper Is Obsolete?

This courtesy of Nourishing Obscurity
 

Emily Davison - Our Nation's Great Betrayal

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

 - Ronald Reagan

Those of a horse racing inclination will know this Saturday is the Epsom Derby. It will also mark 100 years since the death of Suffragette Emily Davison in 1913 shown in the clip above.

Whether Davison intended to die under the King's horse has always been one of historical controversy. Whatever her intentions however the outcome meant she was to go down in the history books as an iconic figure of the women's suffrage movement, despite her actions often overshadowing other arguably more effective women, such as Millicent Fawcett who lived long enough to see the campaign of women's suffrage through to the end. It's a lesson also in how political movements often split over method.

No doubt the papers this weekend will be full of articles praising the bravery of Emily Davison and what she fought for - already illustrated by the Guardian earlier this week. Ironically what will be hailed as an example of "progressive politics" was at the time ridiculed, dismissed and patronised:

Intuition is far more largely developed in women than in men, but instinct and intuition, although good guides, are not the best masters so far as Parliament is concerned. This is the quality, either of feeling or emotion, which would impress and make itself more distinctly heard in this House if this Bill became law. Parliament is the ultimate seat of authority, where grave questions have to be decided, where men have to use their reasoning faculties which they have gained either in college, business, or commercial life; those reasoning faculties which they have purchased through centuries by hard and bitter experience. Parliament exists for the very purpose of opposing feelings, fancies, and inclinations by reason. The cold light of reason has been and should continue in the future to be the one guide so far as Parliament is concerned... I can only state a plain, undisputed matter of fact. It is for that reason that I oppose the granting of Women Suffrage.

One is reminded of the dismissive tone used to describe current movements and parties that are against the prevailing political consensus.

Not that such lack of self-awareness will prevent comforting self-congratulatory adulation of Davison and women's suffrage in general; an inevitability to be conducted this weekend by newspapers such as the Guardian, Daily Mail and the Telegraph, who fully support our membership of an international organisation that is designed, by its own admission, to remove the very thing she fought for - democracy.

How ironic as we celebrate the actions of Davision, that she would be no more enfranchised today than 100 years ago. Women (as do men) have the symbolic right to enter a polling station and mark a ballot paper with a cross but such actions do not automatically confer democracy. It's not the mark of a cross that counts but what that mark can achieve in practice.

An obvious example of a disconnect between the act of voting and democracy is the EU itself - specifically EU parliamentary elections. Yes, we can vote for MEPs but by doing so we are still unable to change the executive, a government nor are MEPs' able execute their voters' mandate. Similarly in the old USSR, the Supreme Soviet was elected but no-one could seriously suggest as a consequence that the country was democratic.

On a personal note I have two recent relatively simple examples of the current futility of Davison's actions.

My mother-in-law sadly suffers from an eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa. This means that although she can still see her sight is progressively failing. Understandably she is more comfortable in her house lit with high wattage incandescent bulbs that can be adjusted to her satisfaction via dimmer switches. She now bitterly complains at uselessness of the pathetic illumination of low energy bulbs and their incompatibility with dimmer switches. Such a ban on incandescent bulbs has been introduced by the European Union, thus, 100 years after Davison, it has rendered my mother in law effectively disenfranchised despite having the right to mark a piece of paper. She is unable to change this law without our exit.

Another example is my next door neighbour who has recently completed her qualifications for being a mid-wife. When signing my nomination form to stand as a local council candidate, she articulated to me her acute frustration at not being able to obtain insurance as an independent mid-wife, instead she could only be insured if she worked as an NHS one. Needless to say:

On October 25th 2013, it will become illegal for independent midwives to practise as they do now. EU Directive 2011/24 on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, once implemented in the UK, will require all healthcare professionals to have professional indemnity insurance or an equivalent guarantee or other scheme to be in place. The legislative proposals for implementation of this Directive have not yet been published for consultation but it is assumed that insurance cover will be made a condition of registration as a midwife with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In 2002 the last commercial insurer offering insurance to independent midwives withdrew from the market as it was not commercially viable given the small numbers of independent midwives in the UK. As a result professional indemnity insurance is no longer commercially available for self-employed independent midwives.

Another lady...deprived of her voice via the ballot box. No doubt among all the exaltations, all political parties will attempt to claim Davison as their own. But the brutal truth is, among the fine words, their actions have let her down. 

As a nation we betrayed her; a 100 years on and nothing has fundamentally changed. We owe her, and her legacy, big time - we have a duty to try to right a massive wrong in her memory at the very least.

A Waste Of Space

Despite coming as no real surprise, I had another lesson today on the uselessness of PCSO's. Above is pictured a car parked outside my property this afternoon. As is abundantly clear by the picture it leaves no room for a pushchair to pass by let alone Mrs TBF's wheelchair.

So I visit neighbouring properties in an attempt to ascertain the owner, to no avail. I decide then to report it to the Police. Parking on a pavement is not actually an offence in itself, but under the Town and Police Clauses Act (1847) causing an obstruction is. In addition, PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) gives the Police the power to arrest any person in order to prevent an obstruction to the highway. Failure to do so could also be argued that they are not complying with their duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. I should make clear at this point I had no intention of wanting any kind of ticket on the vehicle in question - I just wanted the car moved...pronto.

Anyway when I called the non-emergency Police number, the nice chap at the end of the phone gave me a Unique Reference Number (URN) which is usually, in my experience, a Police term to mean sod off. And so two (rather young) PCSOs turn up at my doorstep 20 minutes later, only then to tell me they didn't have the power to do anything other than to place a warning sticker on the windscreen that, and I quote; "looks like an official fine but isn't". But helpfully - I use the term loosely - they informed me if it happened again then " a [real] Policeman would get involved". One wonders if it isn't illegal the first time why is it the second?

The PCSOs in question were clearly aware of the driver's address, telling me unwittingly - or perhaps otherwise - that "the driver had recently moved into the local street", but "unfortunately they were unable to do anything". On that information and with a quick Google search by myself I established where the driver lived. Subsequently I visited his property and after establishing he was owner of said car, I informed him firmly, but politely that his car had to move, which he duly did. Given that the PCSOs were aware of the registered address, why were they unable to do this?

So, in conclusion, what are the point of Police Community Support Officers again?

Contempt

How odd, in 2011 Cameron imposed a three line whip on a parliamentary vote regarding an EU referendum, brought about by a petition:

A leading Tory backbencher says his party's high command is in "complete panic" over next week's Commons vote on an EU referendum.

Clearly 3-line whips are used when the Government is concerned that Parliament may vote against their proposals and wishes. So it's revealing to learn, 2 years later, that Tory 'rebels' have a free vote on the same issue:

Tory MPs could be allowed to vote against the Queen's Speech next week as a row over an EU referendum deepens.

Oh how jolly kind...is that because Cameron is sure of winning the vote anyway?

And what a joke this is:

The prime minister's official spokesman did not rule out the possibility that Mr Cameron might consider backing the amendment himself, effectively voting against his government's Queen's Speech.

But Mr Cameron is likely to be out of the country when the vote takes place.

I'm coming to the conclusion that I hope Labour win the next election because the last thing we need is a fake referendum on the EU organised by this bunch of charlatans (if bunch is the right collective noun).

Boris Repeats The Words Of Dave

Naturally the headlines suggests Boris Johnson (with one eye on Cameron's job) is trying to portray himself as deeply Eurosceptic but the detail of the Telegraph's article most certainly demonstrates that he's not at all, instead revealing on closer look a policy which is exactly the same as Cameron's...

Mr Johnson warned that the country must be ready to "walk away" from Europe if David Cameron failed to negotiate better terms of membership.

Boris' line will probably convince maybe a few Tories to remain put, but it won't work for everyone else. Our EU membership has been based on lie and so has the Tory party's position on it. It was entirely inevitable that the more the EU would reveal itself the less convincing the Tory party would be.

Faced with a perceived UKIP threat, we starting to see the consequences very clearly of the long established schizophrenic Tory EU policy towards our membership of the European Union, to the extent that some are breaking ranks. First up was Lawson now we have in today's Times Michael Portillo, (click to enlarge the scanned in copy*)

A phrase containing the words "chickens, home and roost" spring to mind -  only the chickens in this case are headless ones. As cosmic notes in the comments on Autonomous Mind:

It’s ridiculous to believe that the Conservatives can solve their current problems with a face lift and putting on a set of clothes that don’t fit. I’d say there’s more to it than getting rid of Cameron, but as for having him pose with a pint and a fag……..

For years they’ve dealt with the problem of the EU with a glorious and totally dishonest fudge and kept the party together by painting a picture of a completely unattainable halfway position.

Now they’re coming to the point where they can’t fudge the issue any more and they have to say whether they are in favour of in or out. Declaring one way or the other will see the party split, continuing to fudge will see support drift away.

When you try to deceive others you only end up deceiving yourself.

*I expect News International won't take too kindly to me publishing without permission a Times' article, so enjoy it while it lasts.

The Use Of Language

What becomes very apparent when fighting against the UK's membership of the EU is that pro-EU arguments are based less on facts and more on insults disguised as implied phrases and the warped interpretation of words.

An example of this, is the use of the word "progressive" particularly by the Labour party:

Over the last decade Policy Network has performed a momentous role in the development of progressive thinking, bringing us together as a global progressive family.

For example this:

Members of the Labour Party can become PES activists and get involved in PES activities and campaigns that promote progressive politics on European level

However...the word "progressive" has one meaning but two outcomes. Clearly Labour believe, and use the term, on the basis that it has positive outcomes. The problem is the other outcome describes something that is getting worse leading to an unsatisfactory situation. Mrs TBF for example has 'progressive multiple sclerosis' (I write this to make a point rather than to illicit sympathy), thus the word progressive can also have completely negative connotations.

In light of this, one is also reminded of the term "Little Englander". I've never yet met a pro-EU advocate who can fully explain to me what this term means, especially given that its use in terms of EU membership is contradictory to its origins. Instead it has turned into a term of abuse, based on no facts, which seems largely accepted but on little basis why. It's a term of abuse that can be easily negated by the argument that many EU and European countries have, in various forms, rejected aspects of further EU integration; Denmark, Ireland and Norway who cannot be accused of this. No-one is seriously going to accuse the French who rejected the original EU constitution, of being "Little Englanders".

Thus we come to the thorny issue of immigration.The British public have been concerned about the unprecedented influx in the last decade* and the subsequent fake concern shown by the Tories, Labour and even the Lib Dems very clearly indicates that. However until recently using the term immigration was deliberately used to imply being a racist as a way of shutting down the argument by the use of redefining words.

The deep irony is though our country's current immigration policy is by most definitions racist, a position that is supported by all 3 main parties by virtue of our membership of the EU. A cursory glance at the above picture confirms that. Anyone entering our country is defined by their passport and which country they come from. From EU member Lithuania? Fine enter the easy lane. From non-EU member India? Sorry queue in the 'harder to enter' lane.

This is discrimination personified by the EU - the rules are not applied evenly across all nationalities trying to enter our country. It is a discriminatory policy based on country origins and therefore racist - a situation supported by our establishment. But then changing the meaning of words means getting away with it....

*hattip for the link Witterings from Witney