right to reply

Now I live right on the boundary between two MP constituencies. I wrote to my official MP and the adjacent one as well. I also wrote to three of my MEPs about what has been happening with Brexit. My first emails were last October, and a further set in March.

The emails were unique and customised to their specific situation and differing party politics, albeit I repeated many of the same points to each one.

The MP feedback so far is as follows:

• One of the MPs gave two sets of semi-personalised feedback (to two separate personalised emails) and has been carrying an ongoing torch for a new Peoples Vote. This MP has also sent me several follow up 'broadcast' emails about what is going on. I can honestly say I read the responses as carrying some party beliefs but going outside of party politics. Well done.
• The other MP is completely following the party whip of the Conservative party. My personalised message to him received a boiler plate 'thank you for your message'. You are not representing me.

The three MEPs were less directly involved in the current UK process, so I was more expressing a general viewpoint to them. Each of the three Europhile MPs replied and one gave a fairly tailored response. The other three of my total six MEPs are all pro-Brexit.

It has made me take a quick look at the six local MEPs currently operating in my new area of the country, in case we vote in the upcoming elections.

UNSUITABLE FOR ME TO CONSIDER

1 William Dartmouth (Earl)
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group
an Earl Brexiteer - EFD2 is the Nigel Farage Party.

2 Ashley Fox -
European Conservatives and Reformists group
A conservative Brexiteer - retweeting Theresa May party line.

3 Julia Reid
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group
Another EFD2 Farage Party member - recently actively refuting EU Climate Change policy

CONSTRUCTIVE OPTIONS

4 Julie Girling
Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)
Pro EU - Last speeches were reminding the EU that the 60 million Brits were still inside

5 Clare Moody
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Pro EU, would be Labour Party in UK - recent statement to want to keep a strong voice inside EU.

6 Molly Scott Cato
Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Pro EU - Recent hardline speech against Theresa May's recent actions.

Of course, if Mrs May's chicanery gets the Withdrawal Agreement re-opened to insert a clause from Jeremy Corbyn, then this could all become null and void, by use of cheap tricks.

Otherwise, we'll need to study the MEPs on offer quite carefully to try to remove the people sabotaging EU membership. I suspect a new UK tory leadership will want to create a deregulated, high privacy Singapore Plus tax-haven in the UK.

Excuse my hasty artist representation of Singapore on Thames.

red line

Now we have the bizarre situation where we could be expected to leave the EU with a customs union clause built into the departure. It's like leaving the EU in name (Brexit), but the continuing to follow the EU trade arrangements, without any voice or vote.

Bonkers.

I know both party leaders are in these compromise negotiations, but this kind of last minute leap is ridiculous.

The EU have said we'd need to have something meaningful to say at this time, if we want an extension. Given that the Withdrawal Agreement can't be changed and Theresa May is even fending off changes to the Political Declaration, then it really is the end of the road.

Hypocrisy to even have the meetings.

The only meaningful changes at this time are a People's Vote or a General Election. The latter option is really just adding another four month delay into everything.

SO the options become Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement with its hazy and poorly defined next stages or flavours of Peoples Vote.

The Withdrawal Agreement would simply lock UK into the next stage of a mess. Revoke can reset everything.

Ever reactive, I see the Conservatives via Gareth Fox are preparing for the European Elections with Seat CV to conservatives.com by no later than 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday 9 April 2019)

#revoke #remain #rebuild

goin' round an' round

I've a handful of shares in a well-known high street bank.

One of those tumbleweed letters arrived. It had been on a round-about journey to get to me and wanted to know if I would like to vote in their annual meeting.

The address they still have is my old one. I notified the bank of my change of address more than a year ago, but this letter is from the Bank's Registrar, which I assume is disconnectedly based in a desert somewhere.

Or maybe it is an example of Big Data not connecting dots, or something to do with GDPR?

Easy peasy, I'll logon and change the address.

Wouldthatitweresosimple. Logon failed.

I need to set up a new online account with the Registrar for these errant shares. I attempt to do it and it asks for my postcode. I put in my current one. Not accepted. I try the old one, which goes through and lets me set up the account.

Now to log on and change the address to my current one.

Not allowed. They will need to send me a postal reference number first.

But.

They are sending it to my old address.

Now I know why I need postal re-direction for such a long time after moving house. It means I should be able to cast my vote related to the limited dis-application of pre-emption rights.

back to gordita beach

I'm supposed to be reading a particular book ready for dystopian bookclub on Thursday. I'm about 35% through it on my kindle.

It's one that was made into a multi series Netflix show, Altered Carbon. The first few pages were great because it leapt straight into a crisp narrative, although I did wonder briefly about the first person voice it had chosen.

That's become more of a problem for me as I read further along. There's some first person squish that I just don't enjoy.

It was written in 2002, and creates a more-or-less instant otherworld, showing some decent inventiveness and consistency, with some similar themes to ones explored in recent Black Mirror episodes.

Good work for a first novel by author Richard Morgan.

And, despite the naming similarities, it took me a little while to realise that I'd seen part of the novel in that TV series.

I think I only watched about one-and-a-half episodes- which is maybe why I'd forgotten the name of the show - so I may need to go back and check it again.

It meant I got as far as what is the Hendrix Hotel in the novel, but it is shown as the Edgar Allen Poe hotel for the TV show. With hindsight, I'm guessing it was something to do with rights to use Jimi Hendrix? We'll draw a purple haze over that.

More later when I finish it and/or watch the tv show again.

I'm also reading a real hardback about the music industry, which, if I admit it, I'm slightly struggling to finish. Normally I'd enjoy it, but I'm finding it just a tad too predictable.

That's when Pynchon re-appeared on the scene. It's another one of my few remaining hardbacks and mysteriously appeared immediately underneath my current read in the (tidied away) stack.

I've maybe cheated with this one. I've read it before but it reminded me of the escapism of its own whacky movie.

Time for two and a half hours of (fictional) Gordita Beach 1970s noir. Narrated by the ex-girlfriend of the stoner detective, it's suitably bonkers and well worth a repeat viewing if you have that sort of humour.

last train to trancentral

Demagoguery to the fore since the latest chicanery.

Mid discussion with Corbyn, May flicks a unilateral short pass to the EU, requesting the same pointless exit date as her last failed attempt.

Iniquitous, considering Tusk was preparing the 'flextension' to last a year to avoid zombiesque repeat renewals.

It's desperate slash and burn politicking and now creates similar reactions with the equally self-serving moggsters. Narrow party interests above all, coupled with some teflon coating to deflect blame.

A proper robot would have been switched off.

These illustrations are from 2017. Note one (New Statesman) has a liberal scepticism and the other (Spectator) a right bias.

#revoke #remain #rebuild

stinger number 36

A slight sinking feeling about the small amount of commentary concerning the "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU" petition, which was debated at Parliament on 1st April between 16:30 and 19:45. It wasn't discussed in the main Chamber, instead in Westminster Hall, in a time-slot allocated for significant petitions.

I thought that Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North- Lab) produced a good speech and covered the topic well. The full transcript is here, in Hansard.

Normally I would use the word 'debate', but the Government's representatives took it upon themselves to leave early and, indeed, not to even champion two of the three sections for which they held responsibility.

Heidi Allan (South Cambridgeshire - TIG/Change UK) commented just after 18:00, "I appreciate that everybody’s diaries are incredibly busy in Westminster, but I find it extraordinary that there is now literally nobody on the side of the House that is responsible for responding to the petition, given it is of such a size. Does that not tell us how poorly the 6 million people in this country who are terrified by the prospect of Brexit feel? This is supposed to be democracy—I find it absolutely startling."

And later Jenny Chapman (Darlington -Lab) put it, "I called it a “debate”, but clearly we have not had a debate. Our sharing of perspectives has been among people who broadly agree with one another, and the counter-arguments have not been heard because those who came initially to put them decided to leave. I am sad about that."

Later, at about 15 minutes before the end of the allotted time, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris) was given the job of speaking against the petition.

He used that potentially disrespectful "I hear what the hon. Lady says" phrase shortly before stating: "The Government’s position remains clear: we will not revoke article 50 and we will not hold a second referendum. We remain committed to leaving the European Union and implementing the result of the 2016 referendum."

He went on to say, "Parliament’s position is now also clear. In the series of indicative votes on 27 March, Parliament voted on the options of revoking article 50 and holding a second referendum. Neither option achieved a majority in the House. Indeed, the House voted, with a majority of more than 100, against revoking article 50."

It would seem that his job in this meeting was to throw down a stinger, just before the petition's time limit.

And wait! Since that session on Monday, he's resigned his Cabinet role on Wednesday (Number 36) - citing that Mrs May's position makes his job in government irrelevant. For some reason I'm reminded of Number 6.

charge it

Ever since wireless toothbrush charging, there's been that thing where you don't have to plug certain devices onto a wire recharge.

Nowadays there's loads of options for modern phones. The Apple Airpower has just been cancelled, but I already had a version similar to it which could charge 2 phones and a watch or one phone, a watch and some AirPods. It's okay, but I tend to use it as a secondary charger.

Despite what people say about placement and the need for extra sets of coils inside the charger, I seldom have a problem with devices locking on to the charge.

A better bedside one is a simple L-shaped gadget onto which the phone can be placed. It works a treat. Perhaps also one of those discreet round ones tucked away on a shelf for some booster charging, if needed?

Nowadays, within a day I seldom find the battery on the phone running out, it's more that the watch may struggle to get through a whole day if it is used too intensely for extra functions.

They say it should be a 1 to 1 interview question nowadays...How much charge you have on your phone? As a way to cross-check an individual's personal organisation.

190401 19:37 : Closing remarks from revoke petition debate

Closing remarks - see below for links to full discussion
7:37 pm

Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North - Labour)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I was perhaps being a little unfair on him when I picked him up on his reference to Newcastle upon Tyne North being a leave constituency, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) pointed out, ​there are projected figures for demographic analysis, and I know from the conversations I had on many doorsteps during the referendum campaign that many of my constituents were voting leave.

The discussion and the level of debate from those on the Government Benches have been disappointing throughout this debate, in terms of engagement with the substance of the issue. The point that gets forgotten is a reality check on where we are, rather than going around in ever-decreasing circles, arguing tit for tat about how we got here. We know how we got here. There was a referendum question put to the country that did not specify in any way how it would be delivered, and we had a Government who went ahead and held a general election, and lost their majority. We have a Prime Minister who has completely failed to engage with anyone but those within her own party on this issue, and to reach out and form a consensus.

We know why we are where we are. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), I was disappointed that the few Conservative Members who initially attended the debate, to whom I gave many opportunities to intervene, got up and left before the end without making any substantive contribution. If I am perfectly honest, their contributions were like those in a school debating club—point scoring rather than engaging with the substance.

I marvel, horrified, when I find Conservative Members of Parliament dismissing out of hand the concerns expressed by the CBI and by chambers of commerce up and down the country that the facts around a no-deal Brexit put so many of our jobs and industries at risk, and that they are not ready, as they have said with absolute clarity. The Conservative party used to pride itself on being the party of business; now it dismisses the concerns of businesses and treats those businesses as though they, and their concerns about a no-deal Brexit, are of no relevance to the Brexit preparations.

That is how we have ended up with this petition. To try to dismiss it as some kind of assault on democracy, which we heard in some hon. Members’ contributions, is not only deeply insulting to every single member of the public who took the trouble to go and sign up on the petitions website, but it ignores the deep, gnawing anxiety of so many people in our country who are terrified of the prospect of a no-deal Brexit and want to know that—as politicians, as Members of Parliament, as a Government—we will not stand by while that happens to our country, with all the consequences it would bring.​

Anyone who stands there and says, “I have no fear of a no-deal Brexit; it’ll be absolutely fine,” clearly has nothing to lose and is completely insulated, but I know that my constituents are not. I go back to the point that the Minister made about mine being a leave constituency: the honest answer is we do not know. The vote was calculated as a city, so we know that Newcastle voted remain very marginally. What I do know, as a Member of Parliament who represents, lives in and has children growing up in the constituency, is that I will not take any action if all the evidence, including the Government’s own analysis, points to its damaging my constituency’s prospects.

Even if it means not getting re-elected, the only basis on which I will make this decision is knowing that I have done the right thing in terms of all the evidence I am presented with. That is why this revoke petition has been so popular, but it is also the reason that the call for a confirmatory referendum on whatever Brexit deal the Government arrive at has gained so much support. I recognise, as do my colleagues, that there was a vote to leave the European Union, but how that would happen was not decided upon; that is something Parliament has to decide. We have seen the evidence. We have seen that every single Brexit option will make our constituents poorer, and the impact will be greatest on those in the north-east.

Therefore, my view and the view of many of my colleagues who will support the motion tonight is that we should allow Parliament to have that process, to pass it back through Parliament and give it back to the people to make the final decision. Given that they started the process in 2016, they can now make the final decision on how it ends. That is how I will find out whether this is a Brexit that my constituents support, because they will have the opportunity to vote for it in a referendum—a referendum that every single citizen of this country who can vote can take part in. That is a democratic resolution to the impasse that we find ourselves in here in Parliament.

We know how we got here; we know how to get out of it. It is about time that the Government stopped burying their head in the sand and going around in circles, engaging in a debate that is not taking us forward in any way, but only leaves us stuck in this Brexit chaos. I implore the Minister, rather than engaging in the tit-for-tat that is driving the country to distraction, to compromise and come to an agreement that Parliament cannot take this historic decision without the confidence that it is something the public support.

7.45 pm Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).

Full version

Watch the discussion: here

Read the transcript: here

how the trap works

How the trap works:

• Invite Jeremy to assist with a deal.
• Agree something that works in the Political Declaration.
• Get Jeremy to use a whipped bloc vote to get it passed with the Withdrawal Agreement.
• The Withdrawal Agreement is then passed and UK is legally removed from the EU.
• Call an Election.
• Somebody wins.
• A new leader rebuffs the Political Declaration, nullifying whatever Jeremy has input.

UK is now on the outside.

sunny disposition

Mrs May must have read Sun Tzu but not quite got the hang of it. Some ideas work quite well, but others don't.

FOR OBFUSCATION (5/5 - totally opaque, smacks of jumpiness)

• Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
• Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.
FOR WEARING EVERYONE DOWN (5/5 - everyone is worn flat)

• Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.
• Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
FOR EDGINESS (4/5 - pushed but things fell apart)

• A leader leads by example, not by force.
• If the mind is willing, the flesh could go on and on without many things.
FOR DECEPTION (3/5 - mostly to own troops)
• When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.
• All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
FOR CREATING DIVISION (0/5 - everywhere, but to what end?)
• If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
TEAM BUILDING (0/5 - no constructive teams identified)
• A leader will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
• There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
• Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.
PLANNING (0/5 - Ready, Fire, Aim not the best way)
• Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
• Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
FOR TALKING WITH JEREMY (unable to mark this - see deception and obfuscation)
• Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
• The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
• All warfare is based on deception.
• To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
• Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

step away and #revoke

More from that improv show that's hit London Town: (artist's impression)

Big red buttons? Bad choices? Desperation?

Step away.

#revoke #remain #rebuild #bottomsup

razzle dazzle

It's fascinating watching and listening to some of the politicians on telly at the moment. Some understand the nuances of the current situation. Whether one agrees with them or not, they can put forward reasoned arguments.

Others less so, reliant upon dogma and doing what they are told to do. I've also heard some of them interviewed and simply spout received viewpoints and opinions without anything to back them up.

Theresa May is still trying to bludgeon her Withdrawal Agreement through. Decoupling most of the material content means she might even succeed. It is a classic lack of planning coupled with overrun that we are witnessing.

By comparison, the EU drew up their plans, negotiating strategy and fall backs ages ago. I'm reminded of the slide that Michel Barnier presented back in December 2017. It listed the options of the day and the reasons that many of them transgressed Theresa May's Lancaster House red lines.

Barnier concluded that the only one of the options that didn't cross any of May's (framed as UK's) red lines was akin to a Canadian model. Failing that, it would be a fall into no deal/crash out with World Trade Organisation trading arrangements.

Fifteen months later, and already in extra time, the debate about these options has started, albeit with scarcely a reference to Barnier's chart.

The original basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreement (before all the padding was added) was also drawn up in roughly the same December 2017 time-frame and even available ahead of Barnier's chart. It included the original 'back-stop' wording which has been modified back-and-forth since that time.

I can only reiterate that David Davis must have been asleep at the wheel through this entire period, or else there would have been time for some 'meaningful' discussions well before the road ran out.

I worked out that by around May 2018, the UK negotiation was a failing project with 'Game Over' lights lit all over the board.

It's the time when Barnier created another interesting diagram, illustrating a possible future Partnership Framework.

It talked about governance, level playing fields and a 'security of information' agreement. Specifically it added the EU legal basis for 3rd countries in EU programmes. That and the EU autonomous measures layers were two types of insulation that relegated UK to 3rd country status and quietly positioned that we'd be like anyone else trying to face off to the EU.

May eventually got rid of Davis, but didn't seem to like the replacement Raab's enthusiasm and sidelined him from the negotiation. Nowadays most people would be hard-pushed to even identify the current north-east Cambridgeshire based Brexit Secretary in a line-up.

By the time the Chequers variant of the Lancaster House red lines had been produced, the Department for EU Exit were faced with a huge economic conundrum. Most of the likely outcomes were disproportionately detrimental to the UK.

Crash out was the 8-9% GDP impact over even 15 years. Free Trade over the same time period was still 5%-7% worse off. The EEA option comes out less detrimental, but UK still loses its voice and vote over EU matters.

The chart also illustrates one of the topics that doesn't receive the prominence in much of the debate. That of worker migration. Even in the Referendum campaigning, the split between the leave parties meant that one could argue about migration blocks and another group could keep this out of their agenda. A variant of dog whistle politics where the person with the whistle is decoupled from the rest of the campaigners. It was another of the many distastetful elements of the Referendum campaigning.

Now we are watching more last minute scrabbling to get to an answer. The spectacle of Moulin Rouge, but where there's much about internal party politics. Events are being driven not for the 'will' of the people, certainly not for the good of the people but instead for personal gain.

What's left in the hopper? A few residual options including Barnier's original assertion. We can lose our EU Voting, lose our EU voice and achieve a locked down-trading relationship. It's worse than simply retaining the EU membership.

Here's a summary of the current UK-EU relationship models from the House of Commons library.

May has so far ignored what Parliament has been doing in their off-piste voting. I suspect she is keeping an opportunistic eye on these options, including the only one signalled green, which also happens to be Barnier's prediction from 2017.

Follow that route and we'll be using Barnier's governance chart as well. We can call the outcome Ineptitude Plus.

Oh yes, although yesterday's climate change protest from the gallery gives a bottom line that some other business is still being considered.