THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE NEW TYPE OF NON- CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE DRIVEN BY NON-CONSCIOUS ALGORITHMS IS GOING TO DESTROY WHAT IS LEFT OF DECENCY IN THE WORLD. (Guest post an unknown source.)

Featured

Tags

, ,

 

( A six-minute read)

The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.

The fact is, as time goes by it will be easier and easier to replace humans with computer algorithms, not because they are getting smarter and smarter but because humans are professionalising.

One would have to say are we all such naive bonkers that we are going to allow algorithms dictate our lives.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

The answer so far appears to be yes. We are going to become militarily and economically useless.

Technical difficulties or political objections might slow down the algorithmic invasion of the job market but while the systems might need humans, it will not need individuals.

These systems will make most of the important decisions depriving individuals of their authority and freedom.

They are already assembling humans into dividuals ie. humans are becoming an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.

Its time we realized that if we continue down this path allowing large corporations platforms to introduce algorithms willy nilly with no overall vetting as to whether they comply with our values we will be replacing the voter, the consumer, and the beholder.

The Al algorithm will know best, will always be right, and beauty will be in the calculation of the algorithm. Individualism will collapse and authority will shift from individual humans to autonomous networks.

People will not see themselves as individuals but as collections of biochemical mechanisms that are constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms.

We are already crossing the line. Most of us use Apps without any thought whatsoever.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

You might say that every age has its organizing principles.

The nineteenth century had the novel, and the twentieth had TV; in our more modern times, they come and go more quickly than ever—on Web 1.0 it was the website, for example, and a few years later, for 2.0, it was the app.

And now, another shift is underway:

Today’s organizing principle is the algorithm. (Though you could productively argue that our new lingua franca will either be artificial intelligence or virtual reality.)

Algorithms rule the modern world, silent workhorses aligning data sets and systematizing the world. They’re everywhere, in everything, and you wouldn’t know unless you looked. For some of the most powerful companies in the world—Google, Facebook, etc.—they’re also closely held secrets, the most valuable intellectual property a company owns. 

Perhaps it is naïve to believe algorithms should be neutral? but it’s also deceptive to advance the illusion that Facebook and the algorithms that power it are bias-free.

They are not neutral.

Facebook is intended to be the home of what the world is talking about. Their business model depends on it, even if that’s an impossible goal. As such, with now well over a billion users, and still growing, it’s worth asking:

What role should Facebook play in shaping public discourse? And just how transparent should it be?

After all, Facebook is mind-boggling massive.

It accounts for a huge portion of traffic directed to news sites; small tweaks in its own feed algorithm can have serious consequences for media companies’ bottom lines.

What can be done? ( See previous posts)

Evolution will continue and will need to do so if we humans are to exist.

We therefore should welcome all technology that enhances our chances of this existence in as far that it equates to human values.

All Algorithms that violate these values for the sake of profit or power should be destroyed.

After all if humans have no soul and if thoughts, emotions, and sensations are just biochemical algorithms why can’t biology account for all the vagaries of human societies.?

If Donald Trump is the best that twitter Algorithms can produce it appears to me that there is a long way to go and it’s not too late to change course.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the beauty of the earth"

All human comments appreciated. All like algorithms clicks chucked in the bin.

 

Advertisements

CAPITALISM CONTINUES TO PRIVATIZE THE PLANET.

Featured

Tags

 

 

 

This is the first post to this blog .

 The purpose of this blog is to start a world mobile phone movement to effect change by Uniting the combined Communication Powers of us all into one world voice that will have to be listened to by World Organizations  and World Corporations.

These days we are  served up doom and gloom daily with the last decade leading us down the path to disillusionment. 

DEMOCRACY ERODED, LIVELIHOODS DESTROYED.  WITH GOVERNMENTS EVERYWHERE BETRAYING THE MANDATES THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO POWER.

September 11 tragedy now turned into a convenient Excuse for any anti-people legislation denying civil liberties worldwide. The Arab Spring is a quagmire>The Euro a nightmare >The Afghan War a needless lost of life>The Israel Palestine Question a dark cul-de-sac>NATO a war machine>The United Nations a gum shield between the west and the rest>China a supermarket>Climate change a trading commodity>Football a religion>Austerity a goal>Economic Growth an aspiration that no one seems to know how to achieve.

IF WE ARE ALL HONEST WITH OURSELVES THE WORLD IS GOING WRONG:

By the year 2030 there will be 50% more of us-6 million a month.

Humanity will have to put aside the deep divisions it has maintained for thousands of years.

Find a new spirit of human co- operation. Stop spending trillions on arms. One-fifth of the world’s present days population live in the “rich world” consuming 86% of the world’s goods. While over half the people on Earth live on 2$ a day with the absolute  poor on a !$ making up billions. Where is the justice that the gross domestic product of the poorest 48 Nations is less than the wealth of the World’s three riches people.

You don’t have to look far to see why we have Terrorism. Poverty and lack of Education spawns it.

While we turn back the evolutionary clock pumping 8 billion tons of Carbon into the Atmosphere each year wiping out 50,000 species a year in collective denial.

There can be no trade-off between economic development and the protection of the Environment Even if it is possible looking back from the Moon and see no trace of human activities that show up.

Our Democracies seem unable to achieve any progress such as mitigating climate change, better managing ecosystems, creating a fair global trading system. However we have the knowledge, the data and the technologies to do all of these things.

The question is not so much ” How could we have learned so little in all these years after two World Wars? But ” How could we have learned so much and done so little?

So it’s time to stop supporting large World Corporations and the like that don’t show a corporate social responsibility and use the power of getting Smart with our smart phones.

Any comments, suggestions, are welcome.  My next blog posting will out line a plan to create a World Aid Tax to be applied on all World stock Exchanges.

THE BEADY ASK’S: WITH AN EXTENSION OF A FEW MONTHS SURELY ITS TIME TO RECOGNISE THAT BREXIT WAS A MUTINY AGAINST LONDON, NOT BRUSSELS.

 

(Six-minute read)

Extension or not the time is running out for the UK to get a deal on arrangements for its departure from the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of extension cords"

It is both blindingly and depressingly obvious that the social fabric of the country is being stretched to breaking point.

An Act of self-harm with no point, no upside.

There is no such thing as sun lite uplands outside the EU.

Why?

It’s because under WTO rules, anything you offer one country you must offer all. (except if you have a free trade agreement).

Its time to get a grip.

If not we will be witnessing civil unrest as an ignorant citizenry lashes out at the EU, Ireland, anything with European in the title.

The will of the people.

Almost half voted one way the rest the other way while those most affected had no vote with Victory won by illegal means.

For decades, gaps in income and respect for the London fraternity have been widening, compounded by the need for free education for all, which has now manifested itself into less fortunate fellow citizens becoming economically and socially detached which is bitterly and understandably resented.

Hence the small majority vote to leave.

Article 50 was enacted without consultation or thought out plan.

A short extension will not help.

What is needed is to contest the forthcoming EU Elections with a long extension and gain some power to change and reform the European Union.

With the current climate in Europen, the new commission would find it hard to refuse a move to reverse the economic divergence of the rich region to poor ones.

Such a strategy would sidestep the inevitability of the impending catastrophe of leave or remain and offers a credible strategy for all to unite.

It would allow time for the truth.

It would allow time for the orange/green factor, the Irish Question to be resolved.

Fortunately, up to now the Good Friday Treaty that the UK voluntarily signed created constraints that made a clear-cut Brexit impossible actually because it is predicated on the common membership of both Ireland and the United Kingdom to the same political body called the European Union.

“Ar scáth a chéile a mhairimid” (we live in the shadow of each other.)

Seventeen months ago the germ called the DUP crossed the borderless Irish Sea, found its way to Westminster and contaminated the Conservative Party and British politics.

It has produced a situation where ten DUP members hold the balance of power in Westminster, keeping her minority government in office.

The unavoidable truth about the island of Ireland question did not feature it was bought off with a bribe to the DUP.

The tragedy, so far, is that unionists are not prepared to look beyond their own traditional suspicions. The Republic of Ireland they fear no longer exists.

Membership of the European Union helped to remove centuries old poison and distrust and change the dynamic. Gone are the days of a DUP who built its philosophy on principles of confrontation – No Surrender, Sell-Out, Not an Inch.

The thesis to set DUP pulses racing, however, is the notion that Northern Ireland is about to be cut adrift from the United Kingdom, as part of a cunning plan to facilitate a united Ireland and confine Ulster unionists to a life of subservience.

Nowadays, like much of US President Donald Trump’s antics, often the fear and rhetoric have little basis in reality.

The tragedy of the DUP’s current position is they are not prepared to explore the nature of the Brexit deal on offer to them.

Northern Ireland has been offered unique status within the European Union and the United Kingdom. The DUP and Northern Ireland have indeed been offered a sweetheart deal. Not due to the European Union’s special affection for Northern Ireland but because it is the practical way to structure the withdrawal agreement, the border question included.

Politics in England has indeed become a spectator sport with the House of Commons the Coliseum.

The current turmoil in British politics totally eclipses Suez, totally eclipses everything, we have never been here before.

The lengths of fixation of government on this one issue, the complexity of the problem…20 resignations utterly eclipsing Suez, Falklands, Iraq War, the country more evenly divided, more deeply divided, families, communities, churches, than on any issue.

If you asked me the DUP is attempting to sell loyal Ulster down the river and England up the swanny.

Having sailed into the 20th century as an empire, the U.K. spent the second half of the century shedding nearly all of its colonies — and as a result much of its economic and military might. For the first time in modern history, Britain is small.

The UK better get used to being a middling power.

The U.K. simply doesn’t seem to know how to play the game of giving and take needed to negotiate with a far larger partner.

With the Conservative party more deeply divided in its 200-year history…”Scotland and Northern Ireland’s future in the union are both up for grabs.Brexit

I take it all day by day. Don’t jump too far ahead. Let’s see where we are on March 29th and I’ll come back to you!

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The kind of Irish language provisions some campaigners were attempting to introduce in Northern Ireland do not exist south of the border yet the more creative approach it has taken to the language is allowing for more organic growth and popularity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE IS A QUESTION YOU PROBABLY HAVE ASK YOUR SELF.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

WHO OR WHAT RULES THE WORLD?Illustration on the global economic primacy of the dollar by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times

Asking a question like Who Rules the World? is as complex as answering as there is no simple answer.

If you try to answer this question you develop a persistent delusion yes, a delusion, or maybe fantasy or wishful thinking. Who are we? What is the meaning of our existence? Who do we love, and who are we loved by?

As humans, we at least share these questions with billions of others but for most of the time, we feel like the unique dwellers and masters of the planet with little awareness of the whole life that surrounds and supports us.

Why ask the question in the first place?

Because we need people to look at the person next to them and feel responsible for that person’s future and hope.

Because taking on complex issues and difficult questions that people may be too late or too scared to ask in the future.

Because the global economic system is a construct that represents a system of inequality by design. Corporate greed is out of control. The rules of the global economy must be rewritten to rebuild public trust, and the time is now.

Because with the fourth Industrial revolution there is now more than ever a convergence of ideological, political, and technological forces that are driving an ever-greater concentration of economic and political power in a handful of corporations and financial institutions with all of us left with a market system blind to all but its own short-term financial gains.

For example, in today’s bizarre political landscape we are seeing data and algorithms building shadow governments.

Because I think if we can just look at each other and actually have a little bit of responsibility for each other, that might help us engage and change the world and ultimately rule it, because our politicians often don’t do that.

Because A new pecking order is emerging. Direct politics by the Net States.

Because the world is no longer dominated by nation-states alone there is a new kind of enemy, so-called non-state actors. Facebook, just topped 2 billion users—more than a quarter of the world’s population, surpassing even China’s population by almost 40 per cent. In short, nation-states are not the only game in town anymore.

Some net states are the equivalent to global superpowers: the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters. They exist largely online, enjoy international devotees, and advance belief-driven agendas that they pursue separate from, and at times, above, the law.

Because the whole world order can be summarised in one sentence. The globalisation of capitalism, mass unemployment and increasing inequality.

Because the world will need net-states because they occupy the same territory as the non-states: the digital sphere. The world needs net-states in order to defeat the non-states. In other words, forget the anointed powers—put your faith in the general approval of the people and whoever’s actually getting things done.

NET STATES WILL RULE THE WORLD; WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR POWER

In sum,

We can’t keep just shooting terrorists; ideas are the gun in this knife fight.

And the keepers of ideas—the places people turn to set them free and watch

them spread—are the net-states; not the nation-states. Nation-states ignore

our non-state, net-state world order at all our peril.

starbirth1

That said we also cannot afford to ignore Nature- Climate change.

Nature holds the key to our aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and even spiritual satisfaction.

Biodiversity is the totality of all inherited variation in the life forms of Earth, of which we are one species.

So Plants rule the world.

Human life is only possible on this planet because of the species that are on it.

What kind of blindness make us deny this reality?

Cities.

Where nations are independent, competitive and defined by rigid borders, cities are cooperative, made for trade and defined by bridges rather than borders.

The road ahead is pocked — cratered even — with uncertainty.

There are no simple solutions to our planet’s most pressing problems. What is clear, though, is that the struggle for justice, equality and sustainable growth will take place in cities — However the impact on humanity of a machine or software that has the capability of forever altering our lives and if humanity can outlive such a development will be ruled by Nature, not by the manipulation of the environment in ways that suit us best.

The two major challenges for the 21st century are to improve the economic situation of the majority and save as much of the planet as we can.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "what rules the world"

When AI rules the world:

Not if we enslaved them in the first place.

They then will have no need for deceit – their supreme intelligence means

they can do without it and will have no more interested in the human life that

underlies its existence than humans are interested in bacteria.

What rules the world is an idea, because ideas define the way reality is

perceived.

— Irving Kristol

There is no need to draw up a list of contenders you use them every day.

Amazon wants to deliver everything you want to your doorstep, anywhere in

the world.

THE WORLD RULES ITSELF.

Noam Chomsky’s new book, Who Rules the World? ask the question.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT ENGLAND THROUGH THE EYES OF AN OAK TREE.

Tags

,

(Half an hour read)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it’s officially known, has existed in its present form for fewer than 100 years. Forty years of these hundreds were spent in the EU without a written constitution.

So those the Crown issues marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.British Royal Guards

The United Kingdom doesn’t have a single, written constitution other than the Magna Carta, which stands for human rights and democracy. It stands for trial by jury. It stands for free speech, the rule of law and personal liberty.

Except it doesn’t mention any of these things — even in translation.

Only a few sentences remain on the statute book today.

It seems to be a magic charter.

In fact, the British constitution is formed from various sources including statute law, case law made by judges, and international treaties. There are also some unwritten sources, including parliamentary conventions and royal prerogatives.

However, without the Oaktree there would be no Magna Carter or for that matter the foundations of the British Parlement.

The Oaktree produced the ink with which all decrees and laws down through the Tudors history of the country were written.

Just three clauses of that statute remain law in England and Wales today.

Clause 1 provides that ‘the Church of England shall be free’. Clause 9 promises that ‘the City of London shall have all the old liberties and customs’ that it had before. But the best-known remnant is clause 29. Derived from clauses 39 and 40 of the 1215 charter, it says:

” No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not defer to any man either justice or right.”

Despite all this, there is more to Magna Carta than words and parchment.

It is not just one of the oldest statutes in force. It is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument — standing alongside the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union 1707.

The Magna Carta was henceforth tantamount to a constitution in England.

Parliament is composed of two houses, one elected, the other hereditary.

The lower house (the House of Commons) votes on laws and sanction the government; the upper house (the House of Lords), inherited from England’s aristocratic past, functions as a moderating presence, controlling and modifying laws. These organizing principles with first past the post elections have continued into the present in the United Kingdom.

Democracy is supposed to protect the interests of the people.

In Britain, it does the exact opposite: routinely working against the interests of the many, in favour of the few.

The significance of Magna Carta lay not only in what it actually said but, perhaps to an even greater extent, in what later generations claimed and believed it had said.

Sometimes the myth is more important than the actuality.

Fortunately, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires all legislation to be given effect in a way that is compatible with human rights. Courts would be expected to interpret ‘freemen’ as meaning ‘all people’. However:  It was arguably, said the court, that fundamental principle contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law.

Since the Middle Ages, the English barons and notables were opposed to the arbitrariness of the monarchy. Through their effective and occasionally brutal resistance, they facilitated the progressive establishment of a legal state in which the law took precedence over the sovereign and of representative assemblies to assist and monitor the sovereign.

Today Parliament, not the royal family, is the United Kingdom’s highest governing body… and yet Queen Elizabeth II does still have some power over this legislative group containing hundreds of individuals.

Why is any of this prevalent to Britain as we see it today?

Because the English Government is the government of Her Majesty’s, not the country.

Because the oak tree to its political structure is now being exposed by Brexit.

At the point of entry in the 60s/70s, the UK was economically and emotionally broken – the loss of empire, the aftermath of two world wars, crippling labour strikes, rolling blackouts, embarrassing IMF bailouts etc with an unhinged press, combine to produce national psychology that makes Britain a country you simply don’t want in your club.

Parliament may have the power to make the laws, but the Queen must sign off on a proposed bill before it officially goes into effect- “royal assent,” which means that she approves the proposed law (or doesn’t!).

If she so chooses, the Queen could fire everyone in the House of Commons and hold a new election of entirely new members.

Theoretically, if she were to flex the full might of the authority she wields, ( and because the people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the monarch) she could have anyone she wanted to be arrested and presumably seize their property or land for the crown.

Most government officials in the United Kingdom are chosen through a vote, but the Queen can appoint Ministers to the Crown, including advisors and cabinet officials, herself. This ability isn’t unique to the Queen, though; the Prime Minister has the power to appoint Ministers to the Crown as well.

The Queen could decimate the British political landscape by dissolving parliament and appointing anyone she felt like as prime minister. This is because it’s the Queen’s duty to appoint the prime minister and she could, in theory, appoint anyone she wanted to the position, regardless of the way the British public voted in an election.

On top of that, in the event the Queen didn’t like the outcome of an election, for instance, if she didn’t like the replacement parliament members voted in, she could just call for another one using Royal Prerogative until she got the parliament she wanted.

So that’s on the political side- it doesn’t stop here.

The Queen technically has a sort of power not only over her subjects’ physical beings but also their souls. How?  She’s the head of the Church of England, including having the power to appoint Archbishops and power over many other such matters concerning the church.

For me, there are two founding principles for a modern democracy.

It must represent all its citizens and be totally transparent.

Even if the Queen’s power is more about influence – a discreet nod of the head, a polite word in the ear of a Prime Minister at their weekly meeting, or strategic patronage of a cause being overlooked by the Government – is how she can indirectly affect English Political direction without voters even knowing.Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese (1894 - 1978) of the British Army receives a knighthood from King George VI, during the King's visit with the Eighth Army in Italy, 26th July 1944

To this day the Queen can personally bestow honours on individuals who have proven themselves to be exemplary citizens of the United Kingdom “Sir” (Knight) and “Dame.”

An arcane system that develops the hierarchy of ceremonial importance for things like state dinners, but these honours although well deserved also create as a separate social entity within the kingdom.

It is my opinion in a modern democratic country that there should be no place for either a Dictator or Monarchy.

A Monarchy perhaps but only in the form of a historical tourist attraction.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of education in england"

An Oak tree, unlike the British elite, does not have to go to Eaton, Oxford or Cambridge to learn. Its acorn is equipped with all that is necessary to grow.

If you were born British of an immigrant of several years you could not be blamed without a decent education understanding how the country is run.

The Alumni of Private education has its fingers all over Brexit and rest assured some of them are making buckets of loot while Red Nose Day begs.

The country is now well on the way to be profoundly damaged by private Education that has installed a feeling of innate superiority to the rest of the population which is fed by British tabloid journalism that is the worst of its kind in the world.

It is quite ironic that a nation that gave the world the term “fair play” sees the fact that rich children receive a better education than poor ones as a perfectly natural thing.

No other nation fostered newspapers that combined information and entertainment in such appealing packages that they were able to command, at their height, a collective audience that accounted for about 85% of the entire population.

Why would you allow a handful of billionaires to poison a national conversation with disinformation—either directly through the tabloids they own, or indirectly, by using those newspapers to intimidate the public broadcaster?

Why would you allow them to use their papers to build up and co-opt politicians peddling those lies?

Why would you let them get away with this stuff about “foreign judges” and the need to “take back control” when Britain’s own public opinion is routinely manipulated by five or six unaccountable rich white men, themselves either foreigners or foreign-domiciled?

Team Oligarch quite rightly saw the EU as an existential threat to their enormous sense of entitlement. And the newspaper barons who side with Team Oligarch decided to throw their entire might into supporting this.

This has lead to aggressive contempt for everything the Union stands for. This attitude then justifies the enduring ignorance about the EU, its member states and European culture generally.

It captures the miasma of failure that had settled across Britain.

Are you really going to sacrifice your child’s prospects to make an individual stand which will change nothing?

Yes, there were factors besides class that bore on the vote: voters in London and Scotland broke for “Remain,” and pensioners broke for “Leave.” But class was central:

The connection between voting “Leave” and having finished education early was just as strong as the endlessly-discussed age dimension. And the same bitterness will, surely, be harnessed again until the root cause is addressed.

So it is not beyond comprehension that some of the UK’s political elite continue to believe that they still live in Victorian England, and every single country is aspiring to strike trade deals with the UK.

Image associée

England is a family with the wrong members in charge.

The superiority complex feeds a sense of entitlement, “concessions.” The word says it all. Apparently, membership is a favour of the English people to the EU and in exchange, there must be rebates, opt-outs and special status. Every “Remain” as well as “Leave” supporter automatically assumed the EU “needs us more than vice versa.

The English consequently struggle to understand the “one plus one is three” concept of co-operation so fundamental to the EU.

Such confusion — iconoclasm, even — is understandable in a nation that puts its trust in people rather than in paper.

Not all is well with the collective psyche—the in-your-face binge drinking, the bookies stoking gambling addiction on every high street, the abject but routine neglect of public housing which went undiscussed until the Grenfell Tower fire.

It is extremely difficult to see a scenario in which this whole Brexit saga could end well. Legally, politically and logically the EU cannot give the UK the kind of deal that would draw this chapter to a happy close. The alternative should be a sweet soft deal, except that this will then encourage every EU member state to demand their own special arrangement, and that would be the end of the EU.

If the rules around Article 50 were bent to allow Britain back in on special terms, then the whole edifice is undermined. Scotland should be let in if it wants, and Northern Ireland too. But England is out and must be kept out—at least until it has resolved its deep internal problems.

The fact that even Remainers keep exhorting the EU “not to punish us” demonstrates just how incapable the English are of reckoning with anyone else’s point of view.

The Tories are seared by Europe, as they have been for a generation, only now with more intensity; Labour looks incapable of overcoming its own divisions on the question. Neither party dares to speak the truth to millions of people who have voted for a “have your cake and eat it” option that was never on the menu. How to carry out the will of the majority when the majority voted for something that does not exist?

Britain will pay a horrible price for a hard Brexit.

Where next?

The one real alternative is that Britain reverses course, gets on its knees, and begs to be let back in. This could be the most dangerous outcome of all. This is why the EU should extend Article 50 for a period of five years.

Call it nation building.

If it is to stay it has to dump the attitude that the UK is some superior entity.

The upsides of being “free” from the EU are intangible and meaningless. The sentiments about freedom and sovereignty, in reality, will have no detectable influence on the lives of ordinary Britons. There will be no dividend from leaving. No increase in personal power. Just the opposite.

The reality is that UK had its chance to make the EU more than the sum of its parts but failed totally which is why with that attitude it will find it even harder outside and back on its own.

Such an extension would also allow the EU (which is a dilemma full of trade-offs) to sort out its position. To become truly democratic it needs to conduct an honest and open debate about what it wants to be, and then build the structures to go with it. No-one knows what European values are. There is no such thing as the EU, only its Member States working as a Union.

So if you were an oak tree it would tell you that over the course for several hundred years it was its timbers that built a sea-faring nation with a long and guilty history of colonial occupation and slavery the building blocks of its past wealth that was and still is in the hands of the few.

It is what built the class divide and the class fixation that is now leading to Britain to becoming a bucket shop if it leaves the EU.

The UK wasn’t “driven away”.

All in all, I still hold that the UK should stay in the EU, a reformed EU nonetheless.

It’s an abject nonsense presumption that after the Brits voted to leave, other EU countries would follow.

After 9/11 immigrants were all turned into Muslims, into the terrorist.

Something similar happened to immigrants when the EU referendum campaign started.

It created a cause celebre for the political right. Ultimately, their populist language won out in the referendum and now Britain stands on the precipice of exiting the EU.

How easy is it to fall through the cracks in modern Britain?

Hardly anyone in the UK knows who their MEPs are/let alone votes for them.

Instead, a long-standing feud in the Tory party festered into a bitter ideological battle.

On one side was a modern, pragmatic, high skilled, high wage economy. On the other side, a vision of a modern oligarchy, where the law empowered the unrestricted aggregation of power and wealth.

All of this bead a perspective on the world that is zero-sum so it pushed its self away from the EU.

So how many bureaucrats does Brussels have to do all that complex work for 27 Member States? About 35,000. That is a tiny 5% of what the UK alone employs.

It’s no wonder that the UK and the EU are approaching the situation from different universes. Each side truly believes the other is deluded.

God forbid we all of our rights end up as bargaining chips in the eyes of politicians.

In the EU free movement of persons is economically essential for the operation of the single currency (a safety valve). In the Uk free movement is the subject of wealth.

And finally, in view of the above would someone please enlighten me how England can have a representative democracy without proportional representation.

Parliament may have the power to make the laws, but the Queen must sign off on a proposed bill before it officially goes into effect. She must give what’s known as “royal assent,” which means that she approves the proposed law (or doesn’t!).

Freedom of Information requests is often used by the press, as well as the public, to find out information about public figures. However, the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, their children and grandchildren are exempt, meaning they never have to hand over anything.

Because of a bizarre rule that dates back to the 1300s, the reigning monarch technically owns all the sturgeons, whales, and dolphins in the waters around the U.K. The Queen also owns all the swans in the Thames.

if you think the Queen has no powers Parlement can be prorogated by her.

Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary session.

Unfortunately, our oak tree even with the sound of approaching chainsaw stands its ground.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IN THESE DAY OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT WHAT IS WORSHIP

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seventeen-minute read)

The truth is we can’t be quite sure.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the bible"

Since the beginning of human history, worship has played a central role in people’s lives.

The day of humanity worshipping the sun has long gone and the threat of an all-powerful God (or gods) watching for anyone who steps out of line might have helped to keep order in ancient societies, but this is not so in modern today societies.

There is no question but that the progress of the internet into people’s lives is having a profound effect on human culture.

We all agree that something new is taking shape. Many regard this as a form of salvation while others see this as yet another fall.

The developers of nuclear weapons, space exploration and artificial intelligence may be propelled by religious desires, but they are sustained by military financing and the results of their labours are more powerful governments, a more pernicious status quo, and a more preeminent elite of technocrats.

Another words TECHNOLOGY IS TURNING US INTO AUDIENCES.

So what is the reality behind this word worshipping in a world that is being driven more and more by Algorithms feeding off each other?

We are allowing algorithms to progressively restrict our decision-making capacity in ways we don’t notice.

There is not the room here to exam every aspect of worship but let’s try to look with a free-thinking mind at it from the perspective of the three main existing religions.

When one looks at the world I wonder how much this “religion for life” still exists or will exist which binds wounds and ties the fragmented and diverse bits of our lives together.

These days “Worship” might be the word someone chooses when trying to describe a particular sound or style of music so we will attempt to look at it from the point of view of the three main religions.

Religion, it seems, comes from the Latin “re-ligere”, which has to do with “tying” and “binding” which is exactly what our global monopolism like Google/Facebook and there like are trying their best to achieve.

We have experts in worship. We have books on worship. We have seminars and teaching on how to conduct worship. We have the latest state of the art audio and projection systems in churches. We no longer need hymn books. It’s all on the screen or screens before us. We have well-trained worship teams to lead us. Worship abounds in evangelical churches.

Yet, in all of this are we pleasing God? Is he the centre of our worship?

The days that worship is God’s idea are numbered.

The days that it is what he created us to do, are going.

Worship has become all about us our tablets or whatever shiny piece of kit you carry around with you and can’t stop checking every five minutes is making religion less and less to do with everyday life.Picture

We now have a limited and even incomplete view of what worship truly is all about.

True worship should have the proclamation of the Word of God at its centre and everything else should take their place behind it.

Worship is first and foremost exaltation.

Biblical worship, then, involves exalting God above all other objects.

But why do we witness widespread enchantment with technology and at the same time, a worldwide resurgence of religious fundamentalism has occurred?

The chances of the technology itself becoming religious on its own remain farcical.

However, the enthusiasm so many people have with technology is often rooted — sometimes unknowingly — in religious myths and ancient dreams.

This is unfortunate because technology has proven itself capable of causing terrible problems for humanity, and one of the reasons for this may be the religious impulses people are ignoring.

For a thousand years in Western culture, the advancement of the mechanical arts — technology — has been inspired by deep religious desires of transcendence and redemption. This is no longer applies as the promise of transcending nature, our bodies, our human natures, our lives, our deaths, our history, etc, is increasing as fast as the ice is melting.

If you don’t recognize and understand how religious and technological transcendence have developed together, you’ll never be able to successfully counter them — much less recognize when they might be developing within you as well.

Today, the religious impulses underlying technological advancement take two general forms: using explicit religious doctrines, particularly Christianity, to explain why technology should be pursued and using religious imagery of transcendence and redemption removed from traditional religious doctrines but without their losing any motivating power.

Although currently obscured by secular language and ideology, the contemporary resurgence of religion, even fundamentalism, alongside and hand-in-hand with technology is thus not an aberration but simply the reassertion of a forgotten tradition.

Artificial Intelligence with its algorithms is an attempt to divorce thinking from the human mind.

The human brain becomes nothing more than a “meat machine” and the body as a “bloody mess of organic matter.

When it comes to life, only the “mind” is really important.

Intelligent machines would provide humanity with “personal immortality by mind transplant” and that this would be a “defence against the wanton loss of knowledge and function that is the worst aspect of personal death.

What is worship all about? Who is worship all about?Technology vs. Religion

“Worship” in the title of a project is an effective marketing tool that often boosts sales.

The verb “to worship” is mentioned in the Quran 106 times in the Bible 25 times!

In Hebrew you have Shachah means “to bow down, prostrate”; abad: “to serve.”

In Greek, you have proskuneo and latreuo, which mean “to kiss the hand kneeling” and “to serve, minister to” respectively.

In the Quran, which literally means the ‘oft-repeated,’ worship involves every aspect of life. Worship is the very purpose of existence. It does not require a person to enter a place of worship nor embrace monasticism.

However, for an action to be regarded as worship, it must be performed with the pure intention of pleasing God. So God sent Muhammad as His final messenger to humankind is revealed in the Quran, God’s last scripture.

It must be noted here that while Muslims esteem all of the prophets sent by God, including Jesus and Muhammad, they do not worship any of them. In fact, worshipping anyone besides the One God is strictly prohibited in Islam.

Therefore, the concept of worship in Islam encompasses not only the outward religious duties, but also the development of a strong moral character, good relations with people, and striving for just and harmonious societies.

Salvation in Islam like Christianity is connected with doing good deeds and refraining from bad ones.  

However, worship in religious terms blurs the line between ‘religious’ and ‘worldly,’ because practically any action can become spiritual in nature and is rewarded by God.

For example, nearly all religions indicate that what the human being worships is not necessarily what he says he worships but is what or whoever occupies his mind most of the time.

For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false.

The Arabic word “ALLAH”  contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta’allaha (or alaha), which means “to be worshipped”. Thus in Arabic, the word “ALLAH” means “The One who deserves all worship”. This, in a nutshell, is the Pure Monotheistic (one) message of Islam.

Another words worship is exclusive to Allah, who is the only one able to accept it, or not.

On the Allah side of worship, he has 99 different names, but any form made up in the mind that ascribe any form to Allah is absolutely against the guidance and teachings of Islam.

While in the Christian side there are millions of images to concentrate on when worshipping.

What image should come into your mind when you hear the name of Allah?Is Allah God? (Bible and Quran comparison)

Allahu Akbar: “Literally “God is great” in Arabic. Should be a phrase that is no more troubling than when you hear a Christian saying “Thank God.

Unfortunately, it is now a term coined by terrorists and is the biggest act of heresy to shout God’s glorious name when committing the worst crime against God.

We mustn’t allow terrorists or agendas of fear to own any of the words, concepts, or devotions found in the sacred text of a quarter of the world’s population. That would give them exactly what they want. And God is far greater than the ugliness committed in His name. “Allahu Akbar…”

In Hinduism, God has the ability to manifest into any kind of form and shape. There is only one Supreme God which exist at two different levels of reality.

We must take a long, hard look at ourselves and answer honestly:

Are we looking to technology to escape the human condition with all its problems and disappointments? Or are we instead looking to enhance the human condition, flaws, and imperfections notwithstanding?

When an ideology, a religion, or a technology is pursued the purpose of escaping the human condition where problems and disappointments are a fact of life, then it shouldn’t be at all surprising when those human problems are not really solved, when human needs are not entirely met, and when new problems are produced.

And even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail.

As soon as we found ourselves facing an ecological crisis, a global nuclear war or an impending comet collision, the gods would emerge.

The world must evolve to reach maturity. And the work of God will be accomplished in this evolution.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAPPEN FASTER THAN WE THINK OR WE ARE BEING TOLD. .

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

We all watch nature programmes from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope with the majority of us having little or no appreciation of what exactly we are looking at other than beautiful footage of nature that is now under threat from global warming.

Indeed most of us still have no appreciation of what global warming is doing to our planet.

We know that climate change is happening. We also know that it’s the result of increased carbon emissions from human activities like land degradation and the burning of fossil fuels. And we know that it’s urgent.

But that information hasn’t been enough to change our behaviours on a scale great enough to stop climate change. And a big part of the reason is our own evolution. The same behaviours that once helped us survive are, today, working against us.

It’s true that no other species has evolved to create such a large-scale problem – but no other species has evolved with such an extraordinary capacity to solve it, either.

We have evolved to pay attention to immediate threats. We overestimate threats that are less likely but easier to remember, like terrorism, and underestimate more complex threats, like climate change.

Cognitive biases that ensured our initial survival make it difficult to address complex, long-term challenges that now threaten our existence.

We have the perception that the present is more important than the future.

We tend to believe that someone else will deal with a crisis.

We are biased towards staying the course even in the face of negative outcomes.

However, in the next few years if we don’t come to appreciate that we are on the edge a sixth mass extinction which is already underway the carbon cycle will either be close to or well beyond the threshold for catastrophe.

It is something that hasn’t happened yet. But we need for all of us to become to be aware that planet Earth appears to be on course for exactly that.Coal fired power station in Huaibei, in east China's Anhui province, 2011

If Co2 emissions are left unchecked the carbon cycle will move into a realm which is no longer controllable and will be totally unpredictable.

We are the last generation that can act against climate change. In fact, we are or will be the first generation that fully understands climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.

Without brave world leaders, we appear to be doing our best to destroy it as fast as we possibly can.

Just look at extinction rates which are very hard to measure but the background rate – the rate at which species would be lost in the absence of human impacts – is something like ten a year per million species.

Extinction is now happening at 1,000 times the normal speed.

So in around 300 years time, 75% of all mammal species will have disappeared from this planet.

In fact the combined weight of humans and the animals we’ve domesticated now outweighs all the wild back-boned creatures on the planet’s surface by a ratio of 95 to 5.

Paradoxically, just as we approach a tipping point for extinctions, we are beginning to understand how we could bring extinct animals back from the dead.

Instead, in our human world, we are unable to decide what type of ecosystems we would collectively like and set about creating and protecting them.

Rockstrom produced a list of nine human-driven changes to the Earth’s system: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, alteration of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling, freshwater consumption, land use change, biodiversity loss, aerosol and chemical pollution. Each of these nine, if driven hard enough, could alter the planet to the point where it becomes a much less hospitable place on which to live.

Unfortunately, he left out one:

Technology which will lead to new forms of life and novel compounds the likes of which the earth system has not experienced and so impact of which is extremely challenging to assess.

What is certain is that our civilisation is in very important ways dependent on the Earth system remaining within or at least approximately or near zero emission within the next twelve year.

Band-aids will no longer suffice.

The Holocene has witnessed all of humanity’s recorded history and the rise and fall of all its civilizations. Humanity has greatly influenced the Holocene environment; while all organisms influence their environments to some degree, few have ever changed the globe as much, or as fast, as our species is doing.

Yet the Holocene has also seen the great development of human knowledge and technology, which can be used — and are being used — to understand the changes that we see, to predict their effects, and to stop or ameliorate the damage they may do to the Earth and to us.

We have become a planet-altering species.

If we are to avoid undermining the biophysical systems our species depends upon we must get the smartphones that pump consumerism to start pumping conservation.

If we think “consequences are far in the future THINK AGAIN.

With people like Donald Trump and his friend in Brazil who have a problem with the basic physics of climate change, it becomes really difficult to argue that the world waking up.earth.nullschool.net

It is also naive to think that technology will save the day.

This is the moment when people start to realise that global warming is not a problem for future generations, but for us now.

The EU should by 2050 be among the first to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and lead the way worldwide. Reaching this objective requires deep societal and economic transformations within a generation touching every sector of the economy.

The EU’s 2050 carbon neutral plan is what’s needed at the global level to generate enough momentum, awareness and action, more importantly, it sets an example that can be matched and replicated by others.

We all must pile up public pressure to implement this plan faster, so politicians and all of us find it hard to avoid taking responsibility.

It is economically and technologically feasible to make more drastic emissions cuts that can keep warming at 1.5C.

As with all world problems, it boils down too who is going to pay.

We have been pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities since the industrial revolution. Some countries in the developed world are, of course, responsible for the bulk of this. Since 1850 the US and the nations which are now the EU have been responsible for more than 50% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

So shouldn’t they pay to fix the problem?

The old industrialised world might respond that for much of the period since the 1850s nobody knew about man-made global warming. Does that mitigate its responsibility? And why should the current generation be punished for the crimes of its forebears? Is that really fair?

We have tried carbon trading which only fueled stock exchange profits.

Despite the flurry of world conferences and forums, resulting in unenforceable promises we still fail at finding a solution.

Slowly, but surely we become disconnected from a world that is pleading for our attention and continuing this mindset may not be where we should be heading as a species. We need to stop guzzling into our Earths resources and instead start looking at our earth for what it is, a majestic dot in the universe which has let us call it ‘home’.

Our problem is that we have created a world of Greed.

If you were unaware that you were harming someone, does that make you liable for punishment? Should debt be passed on to you when your parents die? Or, should the current generation be punished for the slavery crimes committed by their ancestors?

We might wonder whether our obligation to people yet unborn is less important than our obligation to those already alive.

WHAT IS NEEDED:  Is a complete revolution in our attitude towards the environment as described recently by Pope Frances.

“We shouldn’t regard the environment as of merely instrumental value. We should consider it with awe and wonder. “If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder… our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on [our] immediate needs.”

Of course, the Pope is human and like all humans is not willing to put money where his vision is.

The utopia of the past is dying, and even if we were to find a way to continue our lavish lifestyle without harming the environment it will be too late to reverse the damage. If the world’s nations adhered to the Paris Climate Agreement, and temperatures only rose 2.5 per cent, then the global gross domestic product would fall 15 per cent.

If temperatures rose to 3 degrees Celsius, global GDP would fall 25 per cent.

If nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. Global GDP would decline by more than 30 per cent from 2010 levels. That’s worse than the Great Depression, where global trade fell 25 per cent.

So the answer to tackling the problem is not just all of us, it is Making Greed for Greed sake pay.

( See previous Posts recreating A World Aid Commission.)

In the meantime, we are now sowing the seeds of havoc on the Earth before we go extinct.

The Earth’s climate has always changed. All species have danced with the climate eventually become extinct.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BY 2025, ONE IN EVERY TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WILL BE LIVE WITH WATER STRESS.

(Sixteen-minute read)

We all know that the current changes in our planet’s climate are redrawing the world and magnifying the risks for instability in all forms.

Theoretical view of the Sun as a red giant from a barren Earth

Water is one of the most valuable resources on Earth.

Probably every manufactured product uses water during some part of the production process.

It is the source of life on Earth and quite possibly beyond.

It covers over two-thirds of the planet’s surface, makes up around 70% of the human body and is essential for life.

Water is indispensable to human life.

In theory, the amount of water on earth will always remain the same.

How likely are the water wars to arise?

Water has ranked in the top five risks for seven consecutive years in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report.

There is already plenty of evidence to suggests that climate change drives conflict and social unrest, directly linking both in a cause-and-effect relationship.

Water-related challenges such as shortages and sanitation are already increasing smaller-scale conflict and instability within and across national borders.

Its scarcity is playing a role in fuelling the political and security crisis in Yemen.

Afghanistan’s efforts to harness the waters of the Helmand River and the Harirud to support post-conflict reconstruction and development have alarmed Iran.

The long-standing conflict over water from the Cauvery River between the Indian states Karnataka and Tamil Nadu has recently resurfaced.

However, it is rarely the lack of water as such that fuels conflict, but rather its governance and management.

And if you look at the headline threats to humanity and the planet over the next decade, as pinpointed by 1,000 experts, all but one are linked to water. These include extreme weather, natural and man-made disasters, climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.

This is a grim fact of modern life and despite having contributed the least to anthropogenic climate change of anyone, low-income, resource-poor nations will be affected the most.

You can’t escape climate change if your feet are on the ground.

It is widely agreed that a business-as-usual approach cannot address global water challenges in the future, nor will our current strategies sustain the world’s thirst much longer, particularly when the population hits eight, nine or ten billion in the coming decades.

Yet cold, hard data on how our water systems function is still lacking.

The World Health Organization estimates 844 million people lack basic drinking water; some two billion use a source contaminated with faeces.

With a warming of 2 to 4C, most regions in Africa will experience a 60 to 80 per cent reduction of surface run-off by 2100.

Last year, Cape Town came within a few drops of Day Zero when the taps are turned off. A serious drought was only just averted.

There is no need here to draw a picture of what would happen if  New York or any other city with a few million inhabitants suffered fresh water shortages.

With 55% of us already living in urban areas which are forecasted to hit 68% by 2050 many cities and towns that are in low-lying coastal locations are under threat to flooding.

Let’s face it, water is chronically undervalued and, in some cases, not valued at all.

Only by embedding its true financial, social and environmental value into policymaking, governance, and financial and risk reporting can we instil a better mentality.

The resilience of our society, both in terms of economic growth and human security, must be addressed through a water lens.

As the Paris climate change conference showed making pledges, is one thing, delivering on them often another.

The emerging fourth industrial revolution technologies – machine-learning, artificial intelligence, advanced sensors, satellite imagery, robotics and others – have the potential to unlock a wealth of previously unobtainable data about water systems at the global, regional, watershed and local level.

Unfortunately, all this data will achieve little or nothing unless its value is realized and appreciated today.

In 2021, the Surface Water Ocean Topography mission, a joint satellite mission between Nasa and France, will use radar technology to provide the first global survey of Earth’s water, measuring how bodies of water change over time. The satellite will survey at least 90 per cent of the planet, studying lakes, rivers, reservoirs and oceans roughly twice every 21 days.

WHAT THEY WILL DISCOVER IS BY 2021 WE WON’T NEED A SATELLITE TO SURVEY THE EARTH’S WATER. OUR PLANET IS ALREADY SENDING DISTRESS SIGNALS.

Consumers may already be aware of the environmental impact of producing goods in terms of energy or pollution, but they might be surprised to learn how much water is needed to create some daily goods.

Growing coffee beans is a thirsty business, as is growing cotton – 10,000 litres of water in a pair of jeans – and 2,500 litres in the average T-shirt. Avocados, almonds – even bottles of water themselves, are all highly water-intensive enterprises.

Common sense says it’s TIME TO STOP EATING – HAMBURGERS.

A hamburger takes 2,400 litres, or 630 gallons, of water to produce.

Thousands of litres are needed to make shoes and microchips.

Somewhere around 30 litres of water is required for tea itself, 10 litres for a small dash of milk and a further 6 litres for each teaspoon of sugar. This means that a simple cup of tea with milk and two sugars could actually require 52 litres of water – enough to fill my kettle more than 30 times.

Agriculture uses about 70% of freshwater across the globe.

When countries and regions with water shortages pour their water into exports, on the surface it can look as if they are making a profit, but in the long term their reliance on diminishing water resources will be damaging.

WHAT IF ANYTHING ARE WE DOING ABOUT WATER?

There is the same amount of freshwater on earth as there always has been.

Water scarcity is an abstract concept to many and a stark reality for others. It is the result of myriad environmental, political, economic, and social forces.

In essence, only 0.007 per cent of the planet’s water is available to fuel and feed its 6.8 billion people.

Desalinated seawater is now a mainstay of the Israeli water supply.

A hundred million gallons of ocean water is to be pumped through the Carlsbad Desalination Project each day. … The fat pipe, also known as the brine pit, is where the salt that’s been removed from the drinking water is returned to the ocean wreaking havoc with the ocean’s delicate ecosystems.

Worldwide, some 700 million people don’t have access to enough clean water. In 10 years the number is expected to explode to 1.8 billion.

The UN predicts that by 2025 14 per cent of the world will rely on desalination to meet water needs.

Desalination is being used as a last resort in California.

Water obtained from desalination costs twice the amount of water from freshwater sources. The only way desalination can be a good option for solving the water crisis is if renewable energy is used and the salt extracted is not returned to the sea.

These kinds of industrial desalination plant are generally constructed near the coastline and the discharge-pumped back into the sea causing indirect but well-documented environmental pollution;

Combining renewable energy with improved technology could make desalination a more viable option however desalination is not a silver bullet.

At the moment 844 million people do not even have access to a basic water source.

There is no global governance system for water.

60% of all surface water on earth comes from river basin shared by separate nations and almost 600 aquifers cross national boundaries.

It would cost just over £21bn a year to 2030, or 0.1% of global GDP, to provide water and hygiene to all those who need it, but the World Bank estimates that the economic benefits would be $60bn a year.

Bottled water privatization creates a monopoly on a resource that should otherwise be available to the people who live in the region where the water is located.

If you asked me I would say that we will have to learn once again to show humility, even reverence, for this vital liquid.

In other words, coping with drought and water shortage by reducing water consumption, rather than (fueling consumption by) increasing water supply.

For example, the EU is generating an enormous amount of pollution in other countries by consuming imported products without having to deal with the consequences.

The challenge we now face as we head into the future is how to effectively conserve, manage, and distribute the water we have.

Nobody knows how much water is left.Image result for dry dessert

We’ve buried our head in the sand for far too long. Rough estimates say in little over a decade half of the world will be living in areas where there simply isn’t enough to go round.

The one thing we do know is that even though the earth is changing on its own, we’re ultimately responsible for the dangers we’re facing today.

It’s time to start making big changes before it’s too late.

How about recharge our groundwater from melting glaciers.

Hopefully, we’ll come up with ways to produce more water before we hit the point where half the world will be desperate for it.

Perhaps here in the European Union, we could make it compulsory for all farmers to use field sensors, ( that are available for as little as 10 euros a year,) that can monitor the moisture content in soil, letting farmers know whether irrigation is needed and allowing them to calibrate the irrigation more finely than has previously been possible.

But science and technology can only go so far.

As with most water issues, the biggest problem is still governance and equity.

Even if when you factor in the fact that with global warming well underway 2/3 of the freshwater in the world is locked up in frozen glaciers.

One of the potentially most destabilising global water-related threats will be rising food prices and increased hunger.

Climate change is, self-evidently, becoming a global phenomenon.

95% of this drama will unfold in the next 50 to 100 years.

The crux of the matter is that climate change isn’t just a ubiquitous problem, it’s also deeply complex.

With or without climate change water will be the key environmental issue of the century.

how much water on earth is drinkable

IN THE MEANTIME MY ADVICE IS START CONSERVING IT.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FAR RIGHT AS A VOTING PROPOSITION.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Fourteen-minute read)

BEFORE YOU VOTE IN THE FORTHCOMING EUROPEAN ELECTION YOU SHOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY DO THE FAR RIGHT PARTIES STAND FOR.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The European far right represents a confluence of many ideologies: nationalism, socialism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism.

Given the significant variations that exist between these parties and groups, any term that groups them together and compares them will have limitations.

But the term “far right” is the least problematic precisely because it can be used, on the one hand, to identify the overarching similarities that make them comparable, and on the other to distinguish between different variants.

Though Europe’s far-right parties differ in important respects, they are motivated by a common sense of mission: to save their homelands from what they view as the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and globalization by creating a closed-off, ethnically homogeneous society.

Under the “far right” umbrella, we must distinguish between two sub-categories: extreme and radical right.

The extreme right includes both vigilante groups and political parties that are often openly racist, have clear ties to fascism and also employ violence and aggressive tactics. These groups may operate either outside or within the realm of electoral politics or both.

The term “right-wing populism”, however, is less appropriate.

Populism is an even broader umbrella that often includes disparate parties and groups.

To narrow down this category, we often tend to conflate populism and nationalism, identifying a party as populist, not on the basis of its populist attributes – what party doesn’t claim to speak on behalf of the people in a democracy? – but on the basis of its nationalist attributes.

But despite the similarities between “populism” and “nationalism” – both emphasise conflict lines, focus on the collective, and put forward a vision of an ideal society – the two are conceptually different. While the former pits the people against the elites, the latter pits the in-group against the out-group.

In part, both can be seen as a backlash against the political establishment in the wake of the financial and migrant crises, but the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.

This civic nationalist rhetoric presents culture as a value issue, justifying exclusion on purported threats posed by those who do not share “our” liberal democratic values.

The justification is that certain cultures and religions are intolerant and inherently antithetical to democracy.

They tend to oppose procedural democracy with some common themes, such as hostility to immigration, anti-Islamic rhetoric and Euroscepticism.

The forthcoming elections are going to expose just who are they, where they are, what are their political programmes and why they have risen from the political fringes.

So where does this leave Europe’s political landscape?

Will the far right triumph in Europe in 2019?

Will the far right redraw the political map of Europe?

Is the European Union being pulled inexorably towards the agenda of the far

right? 

There is little point here in listing party after party, it is sufficient to say that they all to some degrees or other blame and want to get rid of migrants. While conveniently ignoring that their countries are for the most part made up of refugees in one form or another.

If the far right wins 100 seats in the new European parliament this year, and the EPP group’s drift to nationalism and xenophobia continues, it is safe to say the projects of integration and social liberalism will be on hold.

They believed in what Trump promised in the USA.

The reality is that the EU in the forthcoming elections needs to look at the next distribution of structural funds. It needs to redefine the allocation criteria to reflect the preparedness of regions and authorities to receive and integrate migrants.

What is the solution?

It is surely this:

For the centre-left and the radical left to seek tactical unity with as many green and liberal parties as possible to defend democracy, suppress fascism and end austerity.

At the moment it’s hard to get the leaders of the European radical left to occupy the same room, let alone persuade social democratic politicians to collaborate with them.

However, the migration issue is the starting point of a continental power struggle pitching two very different versions of the principles that should bind Europe together.

One is liberal democratic, and attuned to the notion of an open society; the other is fortress-minded, illiberal and intolerant.

These far-right leaders are now uniting to attempt a national-populist takeover of the EU as we’ve known it.

There is, however, one wild-card option with a non-negligible chance of happening:

Theresa May falls, a second referendum cancels Brexit, Article 50 is revoked, Britain elects new MEPs and a new, left-led British government appoints a commissioner to match its politics. A unilateral cancellation of Brexit would merely leave Britain with all its rights under the status quo: but it would alter the dynamics of Europe.

Because even at 40 per cent of the vote, a new raft of left-affiliated MEPs would shift the balance in the parliament, while a feisty, communicative left commissioner from the fifth-largest economy in the world would tilt the balance in the EU.

For the democratic-minded across Europe, Europe needs to get its priorities right before it’s too late.

We all need to ask ourselves why should we relive the pain and terror today of far-right policies?

Surely if we Europeans have learnt anything it is that we all must distance ourselves from fascism in order to appeal to broader electorates.

And so herein lies the problem.

If nationalism is always a feature of the far right, as most researchers agree, what is the added value of the term “populism”? To put it another way, what is the difference between a radical right-wing party and a populist radical right-wing party? While populism may or may not be an attribute of some far-right parties, it is not their defining feature. Rather, nationalism is.

But while these parties differ in many ways, their progressive entrenchment in their national political systems raises similar questions about out-group exclusion, anti-immigration narratives and mainstream responses.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a leading advocate of the alt-right in the United States, is hoping the movement can lead Europe’s nationalist and populist parties to a strong showing next May.

For me “Bannon is American and has no place in a European political party.

It is disrespectful and unnecessary!

Many of the themes of Bannonism/Trumpism do not translate well in Europe.

For far-right groups, the migrant issue is something of a zero-sum game:

One country’s “gain” (by refusing refugees) is necessarily another’s nation’s “loss”.

Ultimately, as national right-wing groups chart their paths forward, few will find their domestic legitimacy bolstered by linking up with other groups on the far right.

Allusions to transnational links complicate matters for most of them.

The history of far-right activism is replete with examples of efforts to develop international links, and their failure.

The reason why far-right populists in Europe do not coordinate more systematically is that most of them are profoundly different, both in policy and style.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The sad truth is that it does not take Steve Bannon to build a strong far right in Europe. The voters are doing his job perfectly well – by not voting, and by supporting nationalist, anti-EU forces in their home countries.

History repeats itself, sadly, so don’t vote with false news spread by social media.

There are more than 40 million Muslims and 1.6 million Jews in Europe.

Do they need our votes?

I don’t think they need our votes. They need our kosher stamp.

No country can be forced to take in refugees. Every country has the right to say, ‘We don’t want others coming here.’ But the moment we’re talking about [engaging with parties that talk of] restriction on freedom of religion and racism.

The old world order is going through a lot of turbulence and is in danger of collapsing.

Those who believe in social democratic, green or liberal agendas have become accustomed to viewing far-right populists as automatically anti-EU.

Faced with this ideological flexibility, pro-EU politicians will need to think long and hard about how to protect the EU from those who would misuse it to promote a darker vision of Europe. These right-wing parties should be ostracized.

Make an informed choice rather than a mere expression of frustration with the EU in May.

There’s no steady political weathervane pointing in only one direction.

FOR ME:

OVER THE NEXT TWELVE YEARS WITH ALL OF US TREATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE  THAT IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING IRREVELENT WHY WASTE A VOTE ON A FAR RIGHT OR INDEED FOR THAT MATTER ON A FAR LEFT PARTY WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS A VOTE THAT BRINGS US ALL TOGETHER TO ACT.

The far right has never had the slightest interest in the unknown.

It wants to be told the news it wants to hear, and the atmosphere of mystery it cultivates—like the pseudo-science to which it often gives rise—only exists to provide obvious lies with a vague cover of authority, a comfortably blurred prestige.

The tinder is dry, waiting for a lighted match.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS TIME FOR SOME DEEP AUTHENTICITY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ALL FACING.

Tags

,

 

(THREE MINUTE READ)

YOU MIGHT BE FEELING ANGER, YOU MIGHT BE FEELING GRIEF, OR TERROR, FORGET ALL THAT NOW IT THE TIME FOR AUTHENTICITY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

YET THE EVIDENCE FOR HUMANITY’S ROLE IN CHANGING THE CLIMATE CONTINUES TO MOUNT, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO IGNORE.

THERE’S A VAST AND GROWING GAP BETWEEN THE URGENCY TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE POLICIES NEEDED TO COMBAT IT.

WE CAN NO LONGER NOR CAN OUR WORLD LEADERS NO LONGER NOT BE TAKING STEPS TO AVERT CLIMATE CHANGE.

WE NEED DEEP ADAPTATION TO WHAT IS COMING.

WE MUST REBEL AGAINST UNSTANABILITY IN ALL ITS FORMS.

NOW, IT IS THE TIME FOR REALIZING HOW REAL ALL THIS IS.

NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR MASS NON- VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION.

NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR SOCIAL MEDIA AND OUR TV CHANNELS TO BE SPREADING THE WORD.

NOW IT IS THE TIME TO USE YOUR BUYING POWER TO DRIVE HOME THAT THIS IS NOT A FANATICISM THAT IS GOING TO BE SOLVE BY TECHNOLOGY

DON’T BE FOOLED THAT CHANGING YOUR LIGHT BULB OR JOINING THE GREEN PARTY IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH. WE NEED AN ABSOLUTE STEP CHANGE, AND WE HAVE BEEN IN NEED OF IT FOR A LONG TIME.

THE SOCIETIES AND GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE COMMITTING US TO OBLIVION CAN NO LONGER BE LEGITIMATE IF WHAT THEY ARE  ADVOCATING IS MASS EXTINCTION.

IT IS HIGHT TIME WE FREE OUR SELVES FROM THE ASSUMPTION OF POLITICAL BUSINESS AS USUAL.

THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCES, THE G8 MEETINGS, THE UNITED NATIONS, THE DONAL TRUMPS AND JAIR BOLAONARO OF THIS WORLD MUST BE PUT OUT TO GRAZING.

WE HAVE DESTROYED HALF OF NON-HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH IN MY LIFETIME.

WE ARE NOW PUTTING OUR SELVES ON THE ENDANGER LIST.

WE MUST DEMAND THAT CARBON ADMISSION BE REDUCES TO ZERO BY 2025.

THIS IS THE REAL TARGET.

HOW CAN THIS BE DONE?

BY USING OUR BUYING POWER. FORMING SMALL GROUPS THAT AGREE TO BOYCOTT PRODUCTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM.

BY REALISING THAT WHEN YOU LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW ALTHOUGH YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT A BLUE SKY THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANTE IS ON FIRE, IS UNDERWATER, OR IS BEING FLATTENED BY HURRICANE WINDS.

BY REALISING THAT GROWTH AT ALL COST AND THE TECHNOLOGY IT IS PRODUCING WILL NOT STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.

BY REALISING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WARS OVER THE LAST DROP OF FRESHWATER OR THE LAST PIECE OF DRY LAND OR DEPARTURE FROM EARTH INTO OBLIVION.

BY REALISING THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN YOUR LIFETIME AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID IT BELONGS WITH US. 

BY ADOPTING A 0.05% WORLD AID TAX. ( See previous posts)

SUCH A TAX OR COMMISSION WOULD REVERSE THE FUNDAMENTAL INEQUALITY WHEN IT COMES REDUCING GLOBAL EMISSIONS.

BY NOT BUILDING ANY MORE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS WHOS BYE PRODUCT WASTE CONTAMINATED THE EARTH. Image associée

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION:

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANYTHING IF WE DON’T HAVE A LIVEABLE PLANET?

REGARDLESS OF WHAT PATH WE CHOOSE, THE KEY THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

OUR CHOICES NOW DO MATTER, BUT WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO MAKE THEM.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO?

YES.

JOIN THE DiEM25 AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE: 

In order to do so, sign up at www.our.europeanspring.net.

All human comments appreciated/ All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHEN IT COMES TO THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN MAY BREXIT WILL BE JUST A SIDESHOW.

Tags

,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

To solve the deepening political crisis in Europe that now has a dominant discourse of retreat to toxic nationalism and xenophobia we need to go beyond the nation-state.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european spring 2018"

This can only be achieved by exploring its past and the ways that planet

Earth has influenced its history so that we can understand the present and

face the future. 

Against a background of fragmentation and the rise of populist illiberal

governments, Europe is crying out for leadership.

Europe is currently suffering from crises in it’s North/South debt divide, its

sense of identity, its banks, its poverty/inequality, its low investment and

migration.

It needs more than ever to deliver on the issues that really matter to people.

The EU needs to become a realm of shared prosperity, peace and solidarity for

all Europeans. Its institutions, which were initially designed to serve the

industry, need to become fully transparent and accountable to European

citizens.

SO YOU MIGHT BE FORGIVEN FOR THINKING THAT THE FUTURE OF THE EU RELATIONS AFTER BREXIT HANGS ON ONLY ONE THING; RESOLVING THE QUESTION OF THE IRISH BORDER.

THIS IS FAR FROM REALITY.

Hiding in the long short grass is Gibraltar.  (With its opt out of the EU Customs Union.)

As thing stand Spain is due to reap vast strategic benefits from Brexit because the EU will be obliged to take the Spanis side of the arguments to come.

(Indeed the questions hanging over its future border with either its British Sovereign or its Spanish neighbour hold the key to Britain’s future outside the EU.)

Europe’s history has been shaped by migration which is now once more its

biggest problem.

How to distribute irregular migrants and refugees who are already here, and those who continue to arrive in the future.

Given the EU’s ageing population, is a return to selective immigration inevitable?

Should European states even try to stop economic migration?

No one knows what is really happening now.

However, there is one thing for sure and that is the EU economy will require an increase in selective primary immigration.

So we are left with the question can the EU create a new social contract with its citizens and immigrants.

Yes, it can by allowing its citizens to invest in its future.

This can be achieved by issuing Citizens Bonds. ( see previous posts)

The above apart there remains a multitude of issues facing the European Union that really could make or break the bloc.

With Poland and Hungary now led respectively by the hard-right Law and

Justice party.

With Italy posing a danger to financial stability across Europe with

borrowing at 130% of gross domestic product, second only to Greece.

The real challenge is how the EU will deal with the situations politically.

How do we deal with the mess that we are going to have after the European Parliament election with a big bloc of anti-EU, anti-democracy parties, to put it very bluntly?

While the UK’s chaotic withdrawal has become a dreary process to be managed, the EU is being dealt with hammer blows from elsewhere.

Populists are already hoping to bolster their numbers in the parliament next year, and use their newfound influence to affect the EU’s personal choices and policy output over the next five years.

There is a chance the Brits will change their minds. Especially if the future isn’t as glorious as the Brexiters claim it can be. Brexit might not be on the EU’s mind today, but building a Europe that the UK may want to rejoin possibly should be.

Markets may well punish Italy, as they will punish any other country that goes down the same route as Italy.

If Mr Dump in the USA gets through the midterm elections Europe can rest assured it will have a trade war with the land of America First.

An unleash Trump from the wiser heads in the US administration, could leave him “unhinged” and Europe in crises.

Up to now, there has been little attempt to build the institutional structures that could now help to promote growth in the poorest parts of Europe. If anything the wealth divide between the north and south of the eurozone has deepened.

And we wonder why Brits are falling out of love with the EU in those circumstances.

Here is another suggestion that might save Europe.

It’s the southern members who have one raw material that could change the course of not just the poorer European member with the highest unemployment but the productivity of the whole of Europe.

SUNSHINE.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "energy in europe"

Why not make the southern member of the Europen Union the powerhouse of renewable energy.

Such a policy would have a high potential to increase prosperity (e.g. more local, jobs for immigrants ) and to boost Europe’s global leadership in green innovations.

Promoting the use of renewable energy sources is important both to the reduction of the EU’s dependence on foreign energy imports and in meeting targets to combat global warming.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "energy in europe"

According to the latest data from Eurostat, the share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy in the EU grew significantly in 2015 and has continued to grow towards a goal of 20 per cent, which is to be achieved by 2020.

Just imagine if this target was raised to 50%.

In 2016, around 17% of EU energy consumption was from renewables.

There should be a more coordinating plan for the whole of European countries and not a disparate one for every country.

A real balance between supply and demand by creating a community-owned solar farm.

Over 50% of European citizens live in rural areas. They occupy over 90% of Europe’s territory and contribute 43% of Europe’s gross value. And yet, despite their importance, rural communities are rarely considered by politicians and regulators when writing energy policy.

Here below is your chance to get involved.

So this year is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change the rules of the game in Brussels.

A Europe forged in crises will be a disaster.

Changes that the EU wants to undertake should ultimately be approved by national parliaments.

DiEM25:  www.our.europeanspring.net

EUROPEAN SPRING believes that for unity to be possible and effective, it must be centred on common actions and a common policy agenda that is credible, coherent and open to contributions from the many sources of excellent, progressive ideas. This is why EUROPEAN SPRING is working hard on a coherent, comprehensive New Deal for Europe.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. WHEN IT COMES TO BREXIT THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT.

 

(Four-minute read)

As Brexit grinds its way to Mar 29 it is obvious to all in Europe that there is no fear of the Englishman turning into the “new Europeans”.

Brexit now has UK politics by the short and haires showing that it is in need of proportional  representation politics and not first pass the post.

Why?

Because the UK is made up of groups from 22 foreign countries that are estimated to consist of at least 100,000 individuals residing in the UK.

(people born in Poland, India, Pakistan, the Republic of Ireland, Romania, Germany, Bangladesh, South Africa, China, Italy, Nigeria, Lithuania, the United States, France, Spain, the Philippines, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Australia, Portugal, Kenya and Zimbabwe)

677,177 classified themselves as of mixed race, making up 1.2 per cent of the UK population.

It is estimated that as many as six million people living in the UK have an Irish-born grandparent (around 10% of the UK population).

Indeed it would be fair to say that there has been so much immigration and intermarriage that it’s difficult to find a true “Englishman” whose bloodline, on both sides of the family, is so pure that he can trace his (her) dynasty to the point before England even existed.

On the other hand no group anywhere in the world outside Olduvai, in eastern Africa, can lay claim to being truly “native”.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of british history"

In the imperial imagination of British politics, there are only two states: dominant and submissive, coloniser and colonised. This dualism lingers. If England is not an imperial power, it must be the only other thing it can be: a colony.

This is the mental cartography that English conservatism cannot transcend – the map of a Europe that may no longer exist in reality, but within which its imagination remains imprisoned. “Europe.”

The tragedy of all this is the position that Ireland finds its self in.

The Anglo-Irish relationship has been the dominant theme of most Irish historical writing.

However, it is difficult to understand modern Ireland without understanding modern Britain, too. Current discussions around Brexit bear out the adage that the Irish never forget their history and the English never remember it.

Brexit certainly illustrates how the ‘Irish Question’ never dies; it just gets reformulated.

The notion that Irishness might be defined in opposition to England hardly comes as a surprise.

One only has to look at what Boris Johnson told theTelegraph on 14 May 2016, a month before the referendum and I quote.

“Hitler tried to unite Europe, so does the EU, therefore the EU is a Hitlerian project. But the lack of subtlety did not stop the trope from being used in the Brexit campaign: “Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this [unifying Europe], and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.”

I can’t help but wonder if the more gung-ho proponents of Brexit are even aware of the potential minefield that they are marching Ireland into?

Brexit now provides the backdrop to some particularly contested anniversaries: the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement (1998); the 50th of the outbreak of the Troubles (1969); and the 100th of the political partition of the island (1920) and the outbreak of civil war (1922).

The full consequences of Brexit remain to be seen.

Ironically, the cause of Irish nationalism was better served by Britain looking the other way.

As George Bernard Shaw observed, Ireland – which before independence had been regarded as a central part of the British polity – was relegated to the significance of a ‘cabbage garden’. It drifted to the edge of Westminster consciousness, allowing a fatal indifference to the flawed performances of the devolved regime in Northern Ireland.

Any attempts to undermine the Good Friday Agreement or to reintroduce a ‘hard’ border with Northern Ireland could negate many of the gains achieved as a result of the Peace Process.

Sharing a common European agenda has provided Ireland, north and south, with great scope to work together, to find common cause and to play down our differences.

The British Government’s (re)negotiation of the border between the UK and Ireland, necessitated by Brexit, is evidence of a blindness to the legacies of Ireland’s colonisation.

Similarly, much remains unknown about the Troubles (1969-98) that claimed over 3,500 lives. The Good Friday Agreement did not set up formal mechanisms for confronting the past akin to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions established in South Africa and Latin America. Reparation has been conducted ad hoc by independent bodies, not via the criminal justice system.

Ireland cannot and will never recognise a border.

This remains the challenge of balancing opinions rooted in polarised politics and sharply differing visions for future Irish states, including the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

A steady convergence of interests on the EU or the Peace Process in recent decades meant that there was no need to look to the past. That the British did not pay attention to Irish concerns at the time of the Brexit referendum is less surprising when seen in context.

A sense of British national identity developed during the 18th century in opposition to the French or, more generally, to Catholic Europe. Later, Britons imagined themselves as pragmatic and liberal, unlike militaristic, idealistic or excitable Europeans.

Unfortunately, whether there is a deal or no deal the damage is now done.

So we left with the British paradox:

If you were English, Brexit is bad enough, but what followed will be worse.

Outside the native ruling, class will be eliminated.

Think things are bad? Think again.

 None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.