The greatest trick the EU ever pulled was convincing the world that it was ‘Europe’

I’ve always been struck by that line in The Usual Suspects where Kevin Spacey’s character quotes the old saying:

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist”

Religious or not, it’s a powerful statement. Its power lies in its inherent simplicity, a simplicity that makes you stop and question. For those who believe in the devil, it is a statement of terror. ‘People don’t even believe he exists, how can they know the true and cunning power being exerted upon them?’ For those who don’t, it makes you question. ‘If I don’t believe he exists…is it because he doesn’t exist…or because he has fooled me?’ Even if only momentarily, the power of the conundrum can jolt.

I started to realise very early on in the referendum campaign that, though not necessarily deliberately, the terms ‘EU’ or ‘European Union’ were being conflated with the term ‘Europe’. This is, of course, nothing new – for decades this conflation has been rife. But it started to matter seriously when the country was about to take a vote on it.

Now, the reason given is one of simplification. “Oh, you know what I mean when I say Europe.” But therein lies its power. Let’s just make it simpler…let’s just say Europe, it’s easier, ‘European Union’ is so cumbersome, ‘EU’ doesn’t really roll off the tongue…

All perfectly true. But let’s take a look at the two distinct terms.

‘Europe’ conjures up images of wonderful cheese, beautiful wine, fresh bread, trains that glide across serene countryside, alpine skiing, sandy beaches…it’s an emotional term.

‘European Union’, whether you’re for or against, puts one in mind of bureaucracy, not getting much done, huge expense, federalism, bullying of small nations, the migrant crisis…it’s a practical term.

During the campaign, I endlessly made this point, almost compulsively correcting the word ‘Europe’ with ‘European Union’, because it was important to me that we talked about the actual issue, rather than reaching for emotion. But I was drowned out. Much as many Leavers on television kept having to say “we won’t be leaving Europe, just the European Union”, I tried in vain to steer the argument toward accuracy, but it was no good. Being accurate was deemed to be simply providing a smokescreen in front of a deep seated hatred. The scoffing and the sliming was too overwhelming. The apparent effort it would take to change this language to be accurate was too much. But this is always a good sign that you’re right, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too worried.

And before I move on, that point is important. It is actually inaccurate to say that Britain is leaving Europe. Inaccurate. Not true. Lefties, I thought this was important to you?

Someone who really gets this distinction is one Jeremy Corbyn. Quiet as he is on his certain desire to leave the European Union (interesting that his followers don’t seem to mind this and let him get away with it, despite their almost worshipful adoration of the EU), he knows full well that Europe is not the same as the EU.

He gets it. His followers resolutely do not. And here is another point which I have been trying to make but cannot get through to anyone with…Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas CANNOT BE EXECUTED whilst Britain is in the European Union. It is impossible. Illegal. Not allowed. If you voted to Remain, but voted for renationalisation, protecting industries etc…you have cast two completely contradictory votes. And anyone claiming the EU can be reformed…well there really will be no convincing you.

It suits the monstrous EU to be called Europe. Much as it suits the wolf to be called Grandma. It knows that whilst people will look past its ugly associations and choose to hear German symphonies in their heads and smell French cheese in their nostrils whenever they talk about ‘Europe’, it is safe.

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist”.

The line was uttered by Kevin Spacey’s character, Roger ‘Verbal’ Kint. Well, that was who he said he was anyway.

Doesn’t really roll off the tongue though…does it?

Thoughts on Gibraltar and James O’Brien

 

They’re more British than we are

Well…that escalated quickly. One mention of a British territorial rock and it’s all kicked off. Perspective has, as is customary in these modern times, taken a long break and doesn’t look like it will be coming back any time soon.

An early shot has been fired from one of the warmer nations of our soon-to-be-former trading bloc regarding Gibraltar, a tiny but spectacularly beautiful jut of land on the Southern coast of Spain. This lovely corner of the planet is British territory and has been since 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht was signed, but remains disputed by Spain. Its 30,000 inhabitants feel thoroughly British, reiterating that fact in two referendums on their sovereignty – one in 1967, and another in 2002 when Tony Blair and Jack Straw tried desperately to give it to Spain.

They are a civil, peaceful, multicultural people who have absolutely no desire to be ruled by their Northern neighbours. They fly both the British and EU flags on their official buildings, having voted in enormous numbers to Remain part of the latter. But now they feel themselves being pulled once more into the middle of an unseemly spat.

This will, in time I’m sure, come to be seen as a mistake on the part of the EU. It is hardly a gesture of goodwill and will put an undue strain on the negotiations. They successfully managed to goad Michael Howard into saying something unwise (although trying to imply he was calling for war is a misrepresentation that should make any reasonable person wince – see paragraph 1), but there has been nothing but good grace from the government. Theresa May has not risen to it, nor should she. The question of Gibraltarian sovereignty has nothing to do with our leaving the EU, and it must stay that way.

It does make me lament that the advice I offered in a previous blog was not heeded by Number 10. It’s almost as if they haven’t read it. But imagine the position we could be in now. “We have guaranteed the rights of all of your citizens, and you repay us by questioning the integrity of one of our overseas territories? That’s not very constructive or friendly now, is it?” Moral high ground gained. Alas, it is not to be so.

Feeling British may not mean anything to most on the Left, but it still does to these people and they take it very seriously. We would let them down to our eternal shame.

There has been plenty of spluttering about ’empire’ and ‘colonialism’ going on about all of this, most of it not making any sense. This is a self governing, democratic people – but you want us to give them to Spain? A country they have no desire to join or be a part of?

But surely, comes the reply, you can’t just own a bit of someone else’s country? “For the Spanish, Gibraltar is an affront to their sense of national identity and their sense of sovereignty – it’s a bit like having a part of Dover owned by Spain” says Jack Straw. Oh, is that right?

It would appear that Spain doesn’t exactly take this principle seriously, and certainly not consistently. Because what is just across the Strait of Gibraltar?

Gibraltar

That little jut of African land, of a very similar size to Gibraltar, is called Ceuta. Ceuta is Spanish territory at the Northern tip of Morocco. Its citizens are Spanish and do not want to be governed by Morocco. Morocco very much wants it back, but Spain asserts its sovereignty. They would never dare hold a referendum to prove it, because that would simply strengthen the case of Gibraltarians to remain British. But the hypocrisy is there for all to see, a mere 30 miles away.

Both of these places are tolerant, multicultural places, patriotic and fiercely loyal to their mother countries – much more, it must be said, than many in those countries are.

The EU would be making a serious error to make this a part of the negotiations. It is imperative that cool heads prevail and this nonsense is dropped very soon.

 

There must be someone else for the job

I’ve been watching Newsnight for as long as I can remember. It could certainly be said that it’s not been the same since Paxman left, but it still provides a very high quality daily news show that, for me, remains unparalleled.

But I have my doubts about one of its hosts. You see, the BBC is supposed to remain neutral. Which means its news and current affairs shows must be balanced. Which means its hosts should be beyond reproach in terms of their integrity. So how on earth do they justify having in the chair one of LBC’s most outspoken talk show hosts, James O’Brien?

The BBC is often accused of bias, often unfairly in my view. I happen to think that it has a left wing tendency, and this seems to be backed up by statements from previous DGs and insiders, but it does at least attempt to be balanced as much as possible. I also am basing that on nothing more than my own perception at this point, I have no numbers or anything to base it on, it’s just an impression I get.

So why, when accusations of bias are flying around, would you make such a partisan selection for host of the flagship news programme?

He hardly keeps his views quiet on his LBC show, and his so called ‘epic rants’ are constantly shared by my left wing friends (which is 99% of my friends), which would surely make him a hero of the left? He will regularly rail against Brexit, against the Tories, against Jeremy Corbyn. He is far from neutral on any of these topics, so how can we expect him to provide balance if these topics come up? How can he not naturally favour Ed Miliband over Douglas Carswell in a debate about Brexit? How can he not naturally side with a Labour MP over a Tory MP? How can we trust him to fairly deal with a confrontation between John McDonnell and Chuka Umuna?

He hates Brexit, hates the Tories and hates Jeremy Corbyn being Labour leader. You may too. But surely you couldn’t want him to pretend to be neutral?

I wonder what would happen if another LBC host were to be made the next host of Newsnight. Maybe Katie Hopkins? Nigel Farage? Julia Hartley-Brewer? No, I didn’t think so. His equivalent from the Right of politics would never be allowed anywhere near Newsnight.

I was particularly struck by one exchange he had, where he was interviewing a woman called Asra Nomani for a piece about Donald Trump. It was supposed to be two women, but the other guest unfortunately had technical problems and so he was left to talk to this person for whom it was evident he had nothing but loathing. The whole exchange can be found here.

The first sign is the introduction – with his opening line of “Anne Gearan from the Washington Post and Asra Nomani who has written for outlets such as Breitbart and The Hill

He almost spits the word ‘Breitbart’, with a vicious emphasis on the T sounds (something missing from the words ‘Washington’ and ‘Post’, both with equally hard T sounds, in case you think I’m being oversensitive).

Then, Ms Nomani has to spend her first exchange with Mr. O’Brien explaining that she does not, in fact, write for Breitbart, and never has. She also explains that she spent 15 years writing for the Wall Street Journal. She does these things with immensely good grace and politeness, not recoiling at all from his accusatory introduction. This was in a piece about fake news.

This has stuck in my head ever since and I feel a deep sense of unease whenever I think about it. The rest of the clip is worth watching as she gently answers his questions and takes all of his interruptions gracefully and without attempting to speak over him. I am not convinced he should be presenting this programme and I will not watch it when he does. I am happy to listen to him on his LBC show, but the Newsnight chair is not the place for him.

Some thoughts on the Speaker, Blair and Milo

It’s been a while since I blogged, and felt like this was a good time to bring it back. I’ll probably be talking politics mostly, but who knows where it’ll go. I’ll be attempting to do it regularly and be more disciplined with it this time. It seemed a shame to stop before, despite my blog being featured on WordPress ‘Freshly Pressed’.

I have felt the need to remove my old posts – it happens to everyone I’m sure, but, much like watching videos of myself do comedy, I was slightly cringing reading them back, so I wanted a clean slate.

I should say now, that I doubt I’ll talk much (if at all) directly about Donald Trump. There will never be anything I can reasonably add to what has already been said about the man, so I probably won’t. I already find it tedious, and it’s been weeks. It’s been said to me that “it must be a golden time for comedy at least”. No. No it isn’t. It’s already boring. Did you know Trump was sexist? Wow. Tell me more about how stupid George Bush is. Is John Prescott really fat?

Personal preference, but I don’t think I can bring myself to do it. If he comes up, it will be as part of another story. Anyway, here are some thoughts on recent events. Feel free to not read them.

The Speaker speaks…I wish he wouldn’t

I am a big admirer of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. I feel I should say that up front, because he really is a quite remarkable man. He has no shame in making sure the government is held to account, with a record number of urgent questions granted, and he makes sure the minister responsible damn well turns up to the House to answer them. He takes a dim view of junior ministers showing up to defend a question, and will often keep granting questions until the minister shows.

He is also, as far as I can see, fair and reasonable in the Chair. If I had any criticisms, it would probably be that he seems to like the sound of his own voice a little too much. Despite regularly calling the House to order during Prime Minister’s Questions in a calm manner (very often the only session of the week that even requires such interventions – it is otherwise very well behaved and orderly), he can, at times, try to shout above the fray with a joke or a witty put down which doesn’t really work. Shouting over a braying chamber helps nobody, and puts one in mind of a supply teacher out of his depth.

Telling Chris Ruane “you are an incorrigible delinquent at times” was probably the best one, with telling David Cameron “the Right Honourable Gentleman is finished [speaking], and he can take it from me that he’s finished” a close second, but otherwise, it can be pretty excruciating. Nevertheless, he is keen to ensure that the House is presentable to the public and, knowing that PMQs is pretty much the only time the public are watching with any regularity, tries to discourage bad behaviour.

However, despite his good points, he does himself no favours with his recent statements. He has often had a significant group of Tory MPs out to get him, and has even survived a couple of attempts to topple him. This, despite his past as a Conservative MP and a reasonably active backbencher. So why on earth would he give them any ammunition by giving his opinion on matters he ought to be strictly neutral on?

In the middle of a Parliamentary session, Mr Bercow decided to give his opinion on a potential address by the new American President to both Houses and came down squarely on one side. Now, there are several problems with this.

Firstly, it is surely imperative that we put aside whether we agree or disagree with what he said. For the Chair to retain its integrity, this cannot matter. I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed, but that is not the point. It isn’t his place to opine on matters of State in public, it is his place to represent the wishes of the House of Commons. He made no attempt to ascertain these wishes, and therefore could not, with any degree of confidence, pronounce on them. If he wishes to give his opinion, he should be absolutely free to do so…the second he resigns his office. There can be no other way.

His office affords him immense privileges. He is a member of the Privy Council, he can give private counsel to the Prime Minister and he can also give private counsel to the Queen. The key word here is private.

Secondly, he addressed a matter that did not even exist. There was no plan for the President to address Parliament in Westminster Hall at that point, so in addressing it, he made it into the story it became. There’s an old adage in football – the referee should never be the story. The same applies to the Speaker, but alas all too often, Bercow makes himself the story.

It should also be noted that, whilst he was addressing an audience outside of the Commons, it was most unwise of him to reveal publicly which way he voted in the referendum. Again, put aside whether or not you agree (a good test is to always think, “what if he’d said the opposite?”), this can only bring problems on himself.

He is already accused of bias and partisanship. This may or may not be accurate. However, by making these public pronouncements, he needlessly opens himself up the charge. If he is so keen to give his opinion, he should do so privately, or resign.

I personally wish he does not resign, but I fear his time will soon be up. I hope that is not through a vote of no confidence, as that would not be a fitting way to close a positive and forward thinking tenure as Speaker. But he is not an unintelligent man, he must have known he was creating these problems for himself. So is he just trying to provoke one last news story before he resigns himself? We shall see.

He rises from the deep

Always…ALWAYS, finish the course of antibiotics. If you don’t it will just come back. And it will be more irritating and frustrating than ever before.

Fortunately, it seems with Blair’s latest relaunch, it skidded off the runway and landed in a field (I may be using too many metaphors here…). Pretty much everyone regarded his recent interference in public life with scorn and revulsion; even those who may have broadly agreed with his assessment could not help but be put off by the messenger.

He really doesn’t seem to get it does he? There is no way back for him in public life. The catastrophe of the Iraq War will be a permanent, lasting scar on the collective psyche, and he, the smiling face on the poster.

Take this excerpt from his speech:

“Our challenge is to expose relentlessly the actual cost, to show how this decision was based on imperfect knowledge which will now become informed knowledge, to calculate in ‘easy to understand’ ways how proceeding will cause real damage to the country and its citizens, and to build support for finding a way out from the present rush over the cliff’s edge”.

It is almost comical in its lack of self awareness. This could be an exact copy of a speech a wizened, old, broken Blair could give to his 2003 self, were he to acquire the advanced technological means to enable such a coming together.

“Expose relentlessly the actual cost”…would that be the millions of lives, billions of pounds and countless displaced?

“Show how this decision was based on imperfect knowledge”…would that be in the form of, oh I don’t know, some form of ‘dossier’?

“To calculate in ‘easy to understand’ ways how proceeding will cause real damage to the country and its citizens”…the citizens of Iraq didn’t need a calculator, mate.

“Build support for finding a way out from the present rush over the cliff’s edge”…millions protested. Begged, pleaded, implored you not to do it. And yet you did it anyway.

He is toxic to anything he now touches, he is poison to any message he cares to spread. He will forever infect any cause he opens his mouth about. If he cares at all, he will stay away.

You love him really. What other explanation is there?

One of my favourite shows to watch from across the pond is “Real Time with Bill Maher”. I like Bill, he’s funny, he’s opinionated, but he’s also fair. I would have enough disagreements with him to keep us going for weeks were we to ever meet, but man, the guy is funny with it.

For me, the best thing about the show is that anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, is invited on. Conservatives and Republicans need brass ones to go on it and face Maher’s overwhelmingly liberal crowds, but when they do, they are afforded a level of respect and an ability to speak uninterrupted not really seen anywhere else.

Regulars on the show have included Ann Coulter, darling of the American Right, Kelly-Anne Conway, director of Trump’s campaign, and figures like Sam Harris and Bill Burr.

Recently, however, Maher had invited on the nemesis of all right-on liberals – Milo Yiannopolous. Another panel member refused to do the show because of this invite (and made a bit of a thing about it on social media…I don’t really like the term ‘virtue signalling’ but that felt to me like it was it).

Now…Milo is controversial to say the least. He is currently banned from Twitter for life, had to cancel a talk at Berkley due to actual riots at his presence (how very charming) and is writing a new book for which the publisher has already had boycotts and huge media attention, despite the thing not even having been written yet.

My own opinion of the guy is that he seems to just be trolling for trolling’s sake. I don’t really read his writings because it’s a little boring. As someone who can rarely be bothered getting offended about anything, certainly not on behalf of others, saying supposedly ‘shocking’ things about women, trans people or gays just comes across as crass and mean. If I thought he was trying to make a serious point, I’d listen. But it doesn’t feel that way at the moment. He claims he is advancing the cause of free speech…well, maybe. I certainly would back him against any protests to shut him down, and I certainly would take no part in any boycott of him. Let him speak, if he wants to. And let others listen, if they want to.

Anyway, this appearance on Real Time. He fired off his usual shots about feminism and some other quite offensive things. And then it was over. Nobody got hurt, nobody had any violence incited against them, Milo looked a bit of a pillock (in my opinion) and Maher thanked him for being on the show, having stuck in some skewers along the way. End of story.

Why should this be so hard? I wasn’t offended, but it reinforced my original thoughts about him. He’s a bit of a troll who wants attention. So please, feel free to keep giving it to him. It will ensure his notoriety and solidify his core support.

I remember, as a fan of the Apprentice, following Katie Hopkins on Twitter (as I did with most contestant once they had appeared on the show) when she had about 5,000 followers. Then she started being the way she is now. I warned everyone to just ignore her and stop talking about her and she’d go away.The predictable first response from a friend was ‘well, you’re talking about her now, you’re doing what she wants…blah blah blah’. Fine. This is the first thing I’ve said about her since. She has 678,000 followers now. Well done everyone.

Maybe we can learn this lesson? It is actually possible to just ignore them. Don’t be ‘amazed’ when they say something to get attention. “CAN YOU BELIEVE KATIE HOPKINS/MILO/TRUMP JUST SAID THAT?!?!?!”

Yes, of course I can. Why wouldn’t I believe it? It’s their raison d’etre. I can’t help but think that liberals, secretly, love to despise them. It feels good, no?