Support for a national coalition in the UK parliament is in the making. Quite rightly, the opposition in the House of Commons has taken control of the legislative programme. They have been able to stop a general election. A general election would mean that parliament is dissolved. To dissolve parliament at such a critical time in the negotiations with the EU would be completely irresponsible - how would the government be held to account?
Equally, proroguing parliament is irresponsible but it offers the opportunity for a recall, if all else is lost.
There is considerable opposition to a "no-deal Brexit" and MPs could stop this if they had the mind to. However, the united opposition are now obliged to present an alternative way forward.
It is apparent that the Government has no plan for the economy, the internal relations between the nations of the UK or the UK's external relations. They have no plan for what happens if we leave with or without a deal or remain. They are behaving recklessly; much to the shock of our EU partners and our allies such as Canada and Japan. The united opposition must develop a mitigation policy and present it to the public.
Ireland is one of the major stumbling blocks. There are really only two solutions to this impasse, and these are either to remain in the EU or to leave but stay in the single market and customs union. To propose a solution that Northern Ireland should remain in the single market and customs union, while the rest of the UK leaves both institutions will be to court disaster. The protestant population of Northern Ireland will not accept this.
Parliament should not accept "closing" either the border between the North and South of Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The potential for dissension would be great and could lead to violence returning to Northern Ireland: violence which could emanate from either or both of the competing communities. We have seen a mortar bomb planted in Northern Ireland today. Britain plays with Northern Ireland politics at its peril - borders mean troubles and a possible return to violence.
Scotland is also another stumbling block: if Britain leaves the EU without a deal, and against Scotland's wishes then there will be a new demand for a border poll. This time a referendum for Scotland to leave the UK will succeed. How is the remaining part of Britain going to negotiate a deal with the EU, whilst at the same time negotiating a deal with Scotland to leave the UK? This would create more problems.
Leave aside the economic difficulties: Britain will be weakened diplomatically if it leaves the EU: it will need a new strategy. Being part of the EU gives us power. If we leave the EU, then Malta will be more powerful than us - think about it.
The new united opposition must plan for a way forward. It should plan to revoke Article 50. If it cannot bring itself to do this, then it must agree with the EU that we remain in the single market and customs union. The latter solution will mitigate the effects on our economy and will go some way to solving the political difficulties surrounding Ireland and Scotland.
Leaving the EU without a deal cannot mitigate the damage that will be done to our power on the world stage. This damage will lead to further economic difficulties when we try to replace all the trade deals that we lose from leaving the customs union. We will also be at the economic mercy of the United States.
The united opposition should be ready to vote the government out of office and install a new prime minister to head a temporary government which will act in the national interest. Of course this premier must have his or her power limited. This could be done by a formal agreement but no one party could be dominant because it would not have a majority in parliament. The united opposition is obliged to act, but will it have the courage to do so and save our country from a potential disaster?
Monday, 9 September 2019
Friday, 9 August 2019
No confidence vote against government in UK parliament
Why is Parliament agonising about having a no confidence vote against the government over Brexit. Let them sort out the mess they created. The present ministerial incumbents advocated Brexit and won an advisory referendum; there was no constitutional or legal obligation upon the UK government to invoke Article 50.
The legal process to approve the invocation of Article 50 was approved by Parliament. Parliament failed to ratify the EU withdrawal agreement and set the UK on a path to intense economic difficulties and the probable break up of the UK. Parliament, therefore , compounded the government's error.
The UK will also be faced with legal problems with its relationship with the EU. It also faces diplomatic weakness in its relations with the EU, the US and China. Young British citizens of the UK ,who do not enjoy dual nationality, will be deprived of their liberty to work, live and love in the 27 remaining countries of the EU; and this is for me the most depressing aspect of Brexit.
No-one who voted leave can provide a cogent and rational argument for how the UK can benefit from Brexit. The cost benefit analysis is heavily weighted in the cost column for diplomatic, legal, economic and social continuity and coherence. Most of the benefits are either marginal or are outweighed by the averse factors.
The best course of action would be for the UK Parliament to forget about a vote of confidence or a general election until either Brexit is revoked or delayed until a less damaging alternative is organised. I voted to remain but I would be prepared to compromise by voting for Britain to remain in the single market which I have advocated before. We could also remain in the customs union, and attempt to negotiate a say on who the union negotiate preferential trade deals with and their terms. My preference would be for a revoke decision, but I would be prepared to compromise as above. Ardent leavers have got no intention of compromising.
Staying in the single market and customs union would alleviate some of the adverse effects of Brexit but not all of them. We will still lose overseas investors and see our position as a middle ranking world power reduced. However, a disaster will be averted.
Parliament should concentrate their time between now and October 31st on passing a law either to revoke article 50 or amend the EU Withdrawal Act - this would mean Parliament deciding and ratifying when the date of withdrawal from the EU would be effected. Amending the act would give time for a third referendum or a realistic compromise or both.
To do this, Parliamentarians need to have the courage to admit that they were wrong to invoke Article 50 in the first place.
They should explain why sensible countries require a two thirds majority to invoke a change to the status quo. They should explain why in Australia a general referendum result can only be effected if a majority of the states vote for it. In Australia voting is compulsory, so a first past the post result is truly representative of all of the electorate. These prior factors are reasons why Australia is able to hold referendums without causing division and dissension in the body politic of the whole of the federation and individual states. These are also reasons why most referendums in Australia fail to change the status quo.
The fixed Parliament Act states that the PM can only call a general election when is there is a two thirds majority in Parliament to approve it. I wonder why a two thirds majority is needed? Also, if the opposition do not approve a vote of no confidence then the government is forced to stay in office. The government could easily be held to account to sort out the mess of their own making. Britain would remain in the EU until a sensible solution is found.
However, MP's will not have the courage to do this and we will probably leave the EU by default without a deal and our country will be the worse for it.
From a personal point of view, my wife and I have the resources and the passports to leave the UK to take up residence in one of the other 27 remaining EU countries. We both have extreme affection for the UK and its tradition of tolerance and liberty. The situation would have to get considerably worse, in our eyes, before we up sticks and left. Luckily, and as a last resort, we can emigrate; but the vast majority of our compatriots will be deprived of this right. Moving to the US or Australia is becoming increasing difficult. Voting to remove the right to free movement maybe something that leavers will regret, either for themselves or for their children. The blue passport will end up just being that: Blue.
The legal process to approve the invocation of Article 50 was approved by Parliament. Parliament failed to ratify the EU withdrawal agreement and set the UK on a path to intense economic difficulties and the probable break up of the UK. Parliament, therefore , compounded the government's error.
The UK will also be faced with legal problems with its relationship with the EU. It also faces diplomatic weakness in its relations with the EU, the US and China. Young British citizens of the UK ,who do not enjoy dual nationality, will be deprived of their liberty to work, live and love in the 27 remaining countries of the EU; and this is for me the most depressing aspect of Brexit.
No-one who voted leave can provide a cogent and rational argument for how the UK can benefit from Brexit. The cost benefit analysis is heavily weighted in the cost column for diplomatic, legal, economic and social continuity and coherence. Most of the benefits are either marginal or are outweighed by the averse factors.
The best course of action would be for the UK Parliament to forget about a vote of confidence or a general election until either Brexit is revoked or delayed until a less damaging alternative is organised. I voted to remain but I would be prepared to compromise by voting for Britain to remain in the single market which I have advocated before. We could also remain in the customs union, and attempt to negotiate a say on who the union negotiate preferential trade deals with and their terms. My preference would be for a revoke decision, but I would be prepared to compromise as above. Ardent leavers have got no intention of compromising.
Staying in the single market and customs union would alleviate some of the adverse effects of Brexit but not all of them. We will still lose overseas investors and see our position as a middle ranking world power reduced. However, a disaster will be averted.
Parliament should concentrate their time between now and October 31st on passing a law either to revoke article 50 or amend the EU Withdrawal Act - this would mean Parliament deciding and ratifying when the date of withdrawal from the EU would be effected. Amending the act would give time for a third referendum or a realistic compromise or both.
To do this, Parliamentarians need to have the courage to admit that they were wrong to invoke Article 50 in the first place.
They should explain why sensible countries require a two thirds majority to invoke a change to the status quo. They should explain why in Australia a general referendum result can only be effected if a majority of the states vote for it. In Australia voting is compulsory, so a first past the post result is truly representative of all of the electorate. These prior factors are reasons why Australia is able to hold referendums without causing division and dissension in the body politic of the whole of the federation and individual states. These are also reasons why most referendums in Australia fail to change the status quo.
The fixed Parliament Act states that the PM can only call a general election when is there is a two thirds majority in Parliament to approve it. I wonder why a two thirds majority is needed? Also, if the opposition do not approve a vote of no confidence then the government is forced to stay in office. The government could easily be held to account to sort out the mess of their own making. Britain would remain in the EU until a sensible solution is found.
However, MP's will not have the courage to do this and we will probably leave the EU by default without a deal and our country will be the worse for it.
From a personal point of view, my wife and I have the resources and the passports to leave the UK to take up residence in one of the other 27 remaining EU countries. We both have extreme affection for the UK and its tradition of tolerance and liberty. The situation would have to get considerably worse, in our eyes, before we up sticks and left. Luckily, and as a last resort, we can emigrate; but the vast majority of our compatriots will be deprived of this right. Moving to the US or Australia is becoming increasing difficult. Voting to remove the right to free movement maybe something that leavers will regret, either for themselves or for their children. The blue passport will end up just being that: Blue.
Thursday, 4 July 2019
Populism and its ugly head.
Populism and nationalism ruined Europe in the 20th Century. The ruination culminated with the 2nd World War. 55 million people died. Millions of Jews were sent to the death camps and tortured. Hundreds of thousands gypsies and other minority groups also suffered in the same way.
It is sickening to see archive film of bombastic nationalists such as Hitler whipping up hysteria at rallies where adoring crowds saluted hatred and xenophobia. Hitler never achieved a majority in a general election but he was able to grab power. His nauseating regime assassinated any one that stood in its way.
A new type of populism and nationalism has arisen in Europe, which on the face of it looks much more benign than that of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. The leaders of the new nationalists and populists do not appear to be dangerous but who is to say that they will not be replaced by politicians who are much more sinister. Who is to say that the crowds cannot be whipped up into more dangerous adulation.
Young people watch out your future which could be endangered by division and possibly war between the nationalist and internationalist states in Europe. Vote with your heads and with reason to defeat the forces of division and destruction.
It is sickening to see archive film of bombastic nationalists such as Hitler whipping up hysteria at rallies where adoring crowds saluted hatred and xenophobia. Hitler never achieved a majority in a general election but he was able to grab power. His nauseating regime assassinated any one that stood in its way.
A new type of populism and nationalism has arisen in Europe, which on the face of it looks much more benign than that of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. The leaders of the new nationalists and populists do not appear to be dangerous but who is to say that they will not be replaced by politicians who are much more sinister. Who is to say that the crowds cannot be whipped up into more dangerous adulation.
Young people watch out your future which could be endangered by division and possibly war between the nationalist and internationalist states in Europe. Vote with your heads and with reason to defeat the forces of division and destruction.
Monday, 10 June 2019
NASA to return to Moon in the next 5 years
NASA plans to land men and women on the moon in the next five years. They have already learnt how to do this and have the technology. There is no reason why this cannot be achieved. After the next manned landings they intend to develop a permanent moon station.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-statement-on-return-to-moon-in-next-five-years
The moon landings will then be used as a staging post for landing on Mars and build a permanent human presence there.
I am all in favour of of human space exploration and scientific discovery. However, I am not in favour of "terra-forming" Mars to make the whole planet suitable for human occupation. This would be an intensely difficult if nigh on impossible task. Trying it and failing would do immense damage to the planet. Doing it and succeeding would also create immense damage. There is a strong possibility that life existed on Mars; if we contaminate the planet with earth microbes and fungal spores we will destroy any chance of discovering the evolutionary processes which lead to life on the red planet. If life still exists on Mars it is likely that human intervention will destroy any life that has a precarious existence on Mars.
Humans will find all sorts of excuses as to why we should establish a population on Mars.
We are busily setting about making our own planet uninhabitable, we may need to emigrate to a new one. I say fix our own planet before we consider emigrating to a new one. Why spoil another planet? If we fix our own planet then there is no need to go to Mars other than for scientific exploration.
Earth could be hit by an asteroid and be destroyed so we need an escape plan. Well, Mars is equally as likely to be hit by an asteroid and all our good works could be destroyed by a space rock. It might be more economic to develop a means of protecting ourselves from an asteroid hit.
Earth could become over populated and we will need to expand. The way things are going, we will voluntarily cull our population through climate change , pollution and the complete man-made erosion of our soil. It would be far better to maintain a sustainable population on our own planet.
The whole idea of "terra-forming" Mars is a mad and selfish venture. The only question is: when will it start?
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-statement-on-return-to-moon-in-next-five-years
The moon landings will then be used as a staging post for landing on Mars and build a permanent human presence there.
I am all in favour of of human space exploration and scientific discovery. However, I am not in favour of "terra-forming" Mars to make the whole planet suitable for human occupation. This would be an intensely difficult if nigh on impossible task. Trying it and failing would do immense damage to the planet. Doing it and succeeding would also create immense damage. There is a strong possibility that life existed on Mars; if we contaminate the planet with earth microbes and fungal spores we will destroy any chance of discovering the evolutionary processes which lead to life on the red planet. If life still exists on Mars it is likely that human intervention will destroy any life that has a precarious existence on Mars.
Humans will find all sorts of excuses as to why we should establish a population on Mars.
We are busily setting about making our own planet uninhabitable, we may need to emigrate to a new one. I say fix our own planet before we consider emigrating to a new one. Why spoil another planet? If we fix our own planet then there is no need to go to Mars other than for scientific exploration.
Earth could be hit by an asteroid and be destroyed so we need an escape plan. Well, Mars is equally as likely to be hit by an asteroid and all our good works could be destroyed by a space rock. It might be more economic to develop a means of protecting ourselves from an asteroid hit.
Earth could become over populated and we will need to expand. The way things are going, we will voluntarily cull our population through climate change , pollution and the complete man-made erosion of our soil. It would be far better to maintain a sustainable population on our own planet.
The whole idea of "terra-forming" Mars is a mad and selfish venture. The only question is: when will it start?
Monday, 20 May 2019
Young people make sure you vote for the UK - EU elections 2019
No matter what your opinion, it is important that you vote in the 2019 EU elections for the UK. Many young people believe that it is not worth voting or couldn't care less. You will be voting for your future. It is ironic that older people take the time to vote. I shall be voting I am 68 years of age. I shall be dead before the full effects of Brexit will be felt.There are many things to consider and probably the top most priority is climate change. And following that it is pollution. Do you want to live in a world that can sustain itself? Europe has woken up and is now leading the way politically if not in terms of action. Devising policies for climate change and pollution needs co-operation in Europe and Britain should be part of this. This is good reason enough for remaining as part of the EU.
Do you want the NHS to be privatised? Do you want to eat chlorine washed chicken? Do you want free and easy capitalism designed just for the rich but not for you? Do you want reciprocal measures taken against you to prevent your free movement to work and love in Europe? Do you want the UK government to make it very difficult for you to live in the UK with a foreign partner?
The EU guarantees that you can live in the UK with a foreign partner or spouse without restriction. Do not let prejudice prevent you from having this most basic of human rights.
If you want your life restricted then you know who to vote for. If you want freedom and some sort of chance of a sustainable life then you know who not to vote for to vote for - it is your choice.
The Brexit supporters say as a matter of principle that they do not want to live in a country which is dictated to by un-elected leaders. Well ask them, who elected the head of the World Trade Organisation and who elected the head of Nato? These are two organisations with which we share our sovereignty and to our advantage. We either indirectly or directly vote for the leadership of the EU we have a much greater say in what policies the EU follow.
Who elected our Head of State? No-one, so are Brexiters republicans as a matter of principle? Ask them what are their principles? They have no answers about sovereignty, climate change, pollution and your freedom to chose where you live and with whom.
The EU elections are not another referendum but they are your opportunity to make your views felt. Young people go out and vote for your future .
Do you want the NHS to be privatised? Do you want to eat chlorine washed chicken? Do you want free and easy capitalism designed just for the rich but not for you? Do you want reciprocal measures taken against you to prevent your free movement to work and love in Europe? Do you want the UK government to make it very difficult for you to live in the UK with a foreign partner?
The EU guarantees that you can live in the UK with a foreign partner or spouse without restriction. Do not let prejudice prevent you from having this most basic of human rights.
If you want your life restricted then you know who to vote for. If you want freedom and some sort of chance of a sustainable life then you know who not to vote for to vote for - it is your choice.
The Brexit supporters say as a matter of principle that they do not want to live in a country which is dictated to by un-elected leaders. Well ask them, who elected the head of the World Trade Organisation and who elected the head of Nato? These are two organisations with which we share our sovereignty and to our advantage. We either indirectly or directly vote for the leadership of the EU we have a much greater say in what policies the EU follow.
Who elected our Head of State? No-one, so are Brexiters republicans as a matter of principle? Ask them what are their principles? They have no answers about sovereignty, climate change, pollution and your freedom to chose where you live and with whom.
The EU elections are not another referendum but they are your opportunity to make your views felt. Young people go out and vote for your future .
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Israel Folau
Israel Folau has been sanctioned by the Australian Rugby authorities for making anti-gay comments. He is reputed to have published the following comment on social media: “hell awaits” for “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators”. He encourages those that he criticises to repent and turn to Jesus.
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
Caster Semenya
It is both irrational and immoral to ban miss Semenya from running unless she takes medicine that reduces her naturally "high" level of testosterone in her blood. She has been proven to be woman both genetically and physically. The scientific evidence is in her favour. She is not cheating.
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
