the brilliantly leaping gazelle

So the news today is that the EU has announced an extension of the first extension which takes us up to the 31st January.  Whoopie-fucking-do! If Boris Johnson was just a regular Joe, chancing his arm with sneaking in another building extension under the noses of the planning department and applied retrospectively, he’d have to tear it down and possibly be prosecuted.

But our unloveable rogue isn’t an ordinary Joe, he’s the Prime Minister and this extension of an extension paves the way for a general election. Apparently. Don’t ask me how exactly, but somehow this becomes a very real possibility. Except, of course for one tiny detail, that might unravel the whole enterprise – or underline how much of a hostage to fortune it is.

It isn’t the by now well rehearsed arguments that places that would normally be used to count the votes – civic centres, sports halls – and other places essential to a smooth running of a general election, are already booked for Christmas events. Whilst financially challenged councils might at a pinch be able to reimburse to hire charges, would they be able to stump up the loss of earnings that a Winter Fayre might generate. Oh, savour if you will, the delicious irony of a Conservative PM being unable to call a general election because of market forces! But does Boris want to be like Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham in ‘Robin Hood; Prince of Thieves and cancel? Christmas’ Of course not!

No, for me the problem is the pesky ‘Fixed Term Parliament Act’ which requires that MP’s will have to pass a bill allowing it to happen. Given that many MP’s face the very real prospect of losing their jobs, are they really going to vote for it? Just a thought.

I know that in and of itself its not exactly the most thoughtful of reasons in favour of Brexit, but that extra hour of glorious sunshine we’re having – well here in London anyway – but under EU proposals that would end.

Because in March 2019, the European Parliament approved a proposal that would put an end to twice-yearly clock changes altogether. If it’s passed by member states and becomes law, it means that we’ll all be changing our clocks for the final time in either March or October 2021. You can get more details of this here.

Of course the EU have tried to dress it all up as somehow having health benefits for citizens, but as is almost always the case when it announces proposed legislation that is claimed to have health benefits, the main beneficiaries are businesses. Shock.

There’s spurious guff about our circadian rhythms – you know, the 24-hour cycles that determine when we feel sleepy, hungry or need to go to the toilet – those one’s. Apparently when the clocks change, this knocks our circadian rhythms out of whack, making us feel more tired and distracted than usual. So our nothing whatsoever to do with the fear of employers hiring cheaper foreign labour to do you’re job and you being forced to work more hours, for less money, because now your being all competitive like. Not that at all.

But the real reason is economic. A study from US think tank the RAND Corporation – not exactly a bastion of of workers rights –  found that inadequate sleep costs the UK economy £50 billion a year in lost productivity and sickness. Oh how my heart bleeds.

And we already know from a study of US workers between 1983 and 2006 that the Mondays after clocks go forward employees tend to sleep 40 minutes less, which is associated with 5.7% more workplace injuries and 67.6% more lost work days. Or was it 8.6% more workplace injuries and 71.3% more lost work days. I may have made that bit up, although it may be true. Who knows? Who’s going to check anyway? But if it seems true, then it must be, right? Doesn’t it feel like it might be true?

Simplifying time also makes a lot of sense from a trade perspective., which is the abiding concern of the EU here. At the moment, the EU is currently spread across three time zones and depending on whether different states opt to stick to their summer or winter times, we could see the UK move into the same time zone as mainland Europe, which would make trade a lot easier.

As I wrote at the start that I know that in and of itself its not exactly the most thoughtful and considered of reasons in thinking that there might just be some wins in Brexit, but as daylight saving was first introduced because of the need the keep our factories as productive as possible during the First World War, it does seem a bit something for the EU to want to change it. I mean, I’m going to be lied to anyway, but I’d much rather be lied to by politicians without a foreign accent!

The Democratic Unionist Party (D.U.P) have made a huge deal out of the fact that they will not accept any Brexit deal which treats Northern Ireland differently to the rest of the United Kingdom, as they believe it might undermine the union.

Fair enough.

But if someone could explain to me how this is in any way compatible with opposing abortion and same-sex marriage legislation which applies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, then please, do.

The Stormont Assembly met for nearly the first time in three years today to discuss plans introduced by Westminster to change the law at midnight to allow the citizens of Northern Ireland to enjoy the same rights as everyone else in the United Kingdom. They haven’t met for any other reason – such as health, education, housing, the environment, the economy, transport, etc – in short undertaken any of the functions you’d expect a devolved government to be focused upon.

Arlene Foster, the leader of the D.U.P, made a speech denouncing this change in the law – which is only taking place because Northern Ireland is in breach of Human Rights law and Stormont hasn’t acted to rectify this – claiming that this was a bad day for the unborn. Mmm. That would be the unborn who haven’t been born yet and ould love to be born into a society clinging to out-dated and bigoted idea’s, that just because they are rooted in some nonsensical belief system that have spurious legitimacy?

Maybe it’s just me, maybe I’m a little fucked up in the head – as Joe Pesci so menacingly said in ‘Goodfellas’ – but has anyone else noticed the similarity between the Boris’s Brexit deal and an iTunes agreement?

By that I mean that Apple know that users of iTunes aren’t going to spend the time needed to read, digest and then make an informed decision whether to install iTunes on their computer. Of course, if you already have iTunes, then you’ll just click ‘Agree’ That’s why its on the front page of the terms and conditions agreement. You don’t even have to scroll all the way to the bottom to do so. They count on our apathy.

In much the same way, the Brexit deal currently before parliament will next to no detailed scrutiny, no careful line-by-line examination, and no considered amendments in committee, before bringing it back to the House of Commons for ratification. In fact any scrutiny, such as there is, is going to be as rushed as a cheating husband hurriedly putting his clothes back on when he hears the front door closing when his wife comes back early.

Something Boris can relate to.

One of the problems with all of this – just one – is that is has the risk of something buried deep in the text, that no-one pays attention too, until it is enforced. Then everyone is wise. Oh yes. After the event. There have been a few real examples of this, where people agreed to hand over their first-born child for free wi-fi or to join a social networking site. Of course these hoaxes were designed to prove a larger point, namely that dangers are often hidden in plain view.

Remember ‘The Maastricht Treaty’ on closer European intergration? That had incalculably less effects and longer-term consequences than this Brexit deal, but had 20 days of parliamentary time. ‘Get Brexit done’ is the favoured soundbite of the unlovable rogue that is our Prime Minister but if this deal passes without proper scrutiny, it’ll be this and future generations that’ll be done up like a kipper.

Oh alright then…

Yesterday was momentous day of incalculable significance for this and future generations but one that resulted in…what exactly?

Now I like to flatter myself that I’m slightly more politically aware than the average Josephine, capable of understanding some of the basic concepts of political posturing and gamesmanship. That I can hold my own with. Good. But for everything else, a bit a sunshine to burn through the fog of bullshit and spin is needed and so, it was with no little sense of high expectation, I watched BBC2 ‘Newsnight’ special yesterday that ambitiously promised ‘Newsnight dissects Saturday’s vote in Parliament on Brexit. What exactly just happened? ‘

It didn’t, and if anything, made it more confusing for the vast majority of people watching. There was the slanging match of an interview between arch Brexiteer Steve Baker MP and Emily Maitless – which is where the title comes from – followed by two interviews with people who had taken James Browns dictum of ‘talking loud and saying nothing’ to extremes. I reflected on the fact that one of the reasons for Nigel Farrage’s appeal is that he gives straight answers to questions, doesn’t seem to give stock responses and communicates in an easily understandable way.

This is a huge bugbear for me, the way that political reporting is unnecessarily complicated, when actually there is a responsibility to the viewer or listener to make it less so. Anyone who can understand the dynamics at work in a large family, the shifting loyalties and temporary alliances, the pursuit of competing interests and grievances, achieving one’s own goals whilst thwarting others, has all the intelligence needed to understand politics. Noam Chomsky makes a similar point using sport.

And there’s more political reporting onanism to cum, with more votes, more legal wrangling and yet more obfuscation in the next few days.

But will there be in the any clarity in it’s reporting? There’s about as much chance of that as there is a sudden outbreak of peace and harmony in the country about Brexit!

Earlier on today, I was faced with a dilemma, namely to smash the radio I was listening to to smithereens, or to simply turn it off. Whilst the option I chose was undoubtedly quieter and less messy, it was also much less satisfying. I was listening to ‘The World at One’, and the main item they were discussing was the language used in parliament yesterday. You can guess the angle they took, a rather censoriously superior tone, the kind Radio Four does so well, so much so that sometimes you’d be forgiven for thinking the Guardian had taken the airwaves.

At no point did anyone think that after sustained hectoring and personal attacks on his motives and character, the Prime Minister might crack. By all accounts, he was subjected to this for nearly three hours and he is human. If I’d’ve been subjected to that level of vitriolic abuse, I’d’ve used much more earthy language, much more often and much sooner. Anyone who has listened to the recent exchanges about Brexit in Parliament knows they can get heated, it’s not the Oxford debating chamber. It’s Brexit, and Brexit arouses strong passions. In fact, if anything, I thought the Prime Mister was remarkably restrained. ‘Well done him’, I though yesterday, as I listened to the ill-tempered cacophany on yesterdays ‘Today in Parliament’.

Anyway today hasn’t been a good day for me, not that any day is good per se, but more that some days are less worse than others, and that today is one that is far worse than in quite a while. It’s a day when I really question the point of getting up, and then I have to make a conscious effort to stop that train of though before it derails. Perhaps that’s why I’ve got no time for perceived slights, manufactured outrage and hyperbolic bolics.

Or perhaps not.

When writing yesterday in the immediate aftermath of The Supreme Court ruling that the proroguing of parliament was unlawful, I cited a number of reasons why I felt the law of unintended consequences might soon come to play an ever increasingly disruptive role in our democracy. Having slept on it, I’m more convinced of it now than I was yesterday.

Not just because, as was pointed out on the excellent ‘Brexitcast’ podcast, it raises to spectre of any controversial government decision being challenged, and possibly overturned by The Supreme Court. The Labour Party may well see this ruling as a victory for democracy now, when it accords with their political objectives, but what happens if they get into government? Will they be so happy if, lets say, a decision to bring the railways back into public ownership, or to sequestrate public school playing fields was similarly challenged? And they lost? Policies that had been the result of a democratic mandate at yesterdays Labour Party conference been declared unlawful by unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable members of a court that is now writing its own rules.

As I wrote yesterday

Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, instead we have a bewildering array of conventions and precedents built up and built upon over centuries

But if the court is now following precedents it has created, without those precedents being challenged, then what happens next? Who has ultimate power? Will appointees to the Supreme Court become increasingly political, such as in America, where a President knows they may only serve eight years at most, but appointees to the US Supreme Court serve for longer and rule on matters of the utmost import.

Earlier this month I got a letter informing me I’d been selected for jury service. I was overjoyed. If people want democracy to work, I reasoned, people needed to do their bit to make it work. I’ve even gone so far as to visit the court building, to make sure it can meet my needs. But now I’m in a quandary, inasmuch as I still feel that way, that for democracy to function effectively it requires the active participation of the people. But after yesterdays ruling, do I believe that democracy works? Am I still required to honour the obligations beholden upon me, if I believe that democracy isn’t honouring its to me?

And if, as has been widely speculated, Boris Johnson does indeed submit a proposal for a general election to parliament later today, what’s the point in bothering to vote? As I wrote yesterday

If I, along with 17.5 million other people, had voted to leave, only for 11 judges to seek to prevent it from happening, I’d be asking exactly whose interests does the law serve?

The Supreme Court ruling that the proroguing of parliament was unlawful has been welcomed by some as a victory for democracy. But is it?

As I’ve written many times, I voted to remain, but more people voted to leave, and because we live in a democracy, I dealt with it and moved on. But lots of people didn’t. Now if the case the Supreme Court ruled on had been financed by a large number of disgruntled remainers who had raised the funds needed to bring the case, I’ll admit I’d have had less of a problem with that than with one wealthy woman bankrolling the whole thing. For a well-argued case why this is not especially helpful for democracy, I’d urge you to read this.

My second problem is that it gives Boris Johnson the chance to appeal directly to the 17.5 million people who voted to leave and claim that a cabal of various elites is thwarting their wishes. Whilst this may or may not be true, he can assert it to be true and on the face of it, the facts bear him out. Who brought the case? A businesswoman who had already been to the Supreme Court before about Brexit, someone who has never reconciled herself to the referendum result.

My third problem is with the Supreme Court and the unintended consequences that might stem from this verdict. Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, instead we have a bewildering array of conventions and precedents built up and built upon over centuries. But conventions and precedents only work when they’re adhered to, if the people they are applied to feel they have some legitimacy, a reason to obey them. If not, they won’t. If I, along with 17.5 million other people, had voted to leave, only for 11 judges to seek to prevent it from happening, I’d be asking exactly whose interests does the law serve?

Which leads me on to my final, and most important problem, namely in what universe is this verdict going to help heal the divisions between the opposing camps. Equally, had the verdict gone the other way, the same question would still be relevant. Actually, thinking about it, it isn’t simply a case of healing the divisions between leavers and remainers, its also healing the divisions between the moderates and ultra’s on both sides.

Today would be a masterstroke of ironic genius if it wasn’t for the fact that it is a painful indictment of the human condition, one which will help bring about our eventual extinction as a species.

On the one hand, we have protesters taking to the streets through out the world and well, protesting about climate change, or to be more accurate the lack of any concerted and sustained and demanding meaningful action be taken or those with the power to effect such. What this action might be and how effective it might be is another matter. However, the important thing is not only are that they are doing something, it is that they are seen to be doing it.

On the other hand, we have the news that the travel company Thomas Cook is at risk of collapse, therefore holiday-maker’s plans are put at risk.

The utter ridiculousness of these situations was put into sharp relief on ‘The World at One’ today. Immediately following an earnest report on the climate change protestors concerns, there then followed what was supposed to be a heart-rending tale of a holidaymaker whose plans to jet off to the Maldives had been thrown into question by the turmoil engulfing Thomas Cook. That would be the Maldives Islands that are at great risk of flooding due to rising sea levels caused by climate change, partly caused by the emissions caused by aviation fuel released into the atmosphere.

That Maldives.

Mind you, at least the weather was nice for the protestors!

Anyone with an I.Q bigger than the radius of their kneecap would’ve been not in the least bit surprised by the news today that the Liberal Democrats have pledged to cancel Brexit if they come to power at the next general election. But don’t worry. That ‘if’ presupposes a lot of unlikely things will conspire to make one very impossible thing a reality. I mean, if could walk unaided again I’d like to do more hiking, possibly give mountaineering a punt. 

But at least I’m not so delusional as to think it remotely possible. The same cannot be said of the Liberal Democrats. I mean they are aware that we have a first past the post electoral system for general elections aren’t they? And that the only reason they enjoyed the success they did in the recent European elections was because they use proportional representation?

And just because they proclaim to be something doesn’t mean they are, unless of course they’re channelling the spirit of the ‘Red Queen’ in ‘Alice in Wonderland’, in which case it means what she says it means. Otherwise could someone please tell me exactly how are the ‘Liberal Democrats’ either liberal or democratic? How is ignoring the result of  democratic vote, compatible with that. Being in a democracy means accepting things you don’t like when the result isn’t the one you wanted. I voted for to remain like a lot of people but more people didn’t. It sucked cocks in hell for few days but after that I got over it.

It’s just struck me how similar people who want a second referendum or better still to thwart Brexit are to conspiracy theorists. Because just like them they marshall deeply spurious assertions and flawed logic to bolster an opinion they believe everyone should believe. I’ve got to be careful here, because one of my good friends will be reading this and she thinks the people should be asked again and we’re meant to be going on holiday tomorrow. I’ll just say that if the Leavers had lost and they carried in like the Remainers had, well they’d be roundly and comprehensively denounced as the bad losers, the turncoats they are.