A Glow-Worm: Spotted on 2nd July, 2016 (in the dark at 23:00!)
Fairly ecstatic, finally spotted a glow-worm in the countryside of the UK. Of course in the picture above, I've taken a flash-light of the creature hanging onto a stem with it's abdomen curled up to show off it's green fluorescent light. I spotted it, because the only thing I could see in the dark was a small green "LED" glowing light shiny out towards me in an otherwise dark walk home.
To be frank, it's been very nice away from politics, though it is still interesting to follow "developments" through a filter of knowledge built up over a few years. Knowledge that I hope will be developed into applications that can be used to "shine more light in the dark" in the future ahead.
Otherwise some interesting "potpourris" on the Referendum and how the next step of the process is being (or not) processed:-
This is quite useful giving perspective to market volatility. In fact responsible campaigning should have "secured access to the Single Market" reassurance if people had been able to cope with a baseline of honesty in politics...
One of the consequences of making the question more and more about "WHO?" than my proposition about "WHAT?" is the sort of above result and counter-results to accusing people of "cheating other people" of "something". It's illustrative of a very immature and ego-driven communication.
As with the above, this was grabbed off twitter, too. Norway has received far far more attention and consideration than before the Referendum and indeed the horrible horrible misinformation and legacy news-media aided exercise in this: To look at "Norway" or the EFTA/EEA option post-referendum it is undeniable in a like-for-like comparison that there are benefits to it even considering the above and very useful to use against "Storytime With..." such as Mary Dejevsky:-
"There were flickers of an idea, in the immediate aftershock of the Brexit vote, that a second referendum might soften, or even reverse, the separation of the UK from the European Union. It should now be clear, both from the response of EU leaders and from the statements of intention by all five candidates for the Conservative Party leadership, that there is no going back. At least not in the near future, and not on the same privileged terms as the UK currently enjoys.She should really be using basic fact boxes instead of writing such twisted junk.
Even the compromise models of semi-detachment – Norway and Switzerland – that would leave the UK as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), but not the EU, have been effectively rejected because they presuppose “free movement”. It would be to fly in the face of the vote to accept essentially the same terms the UK has now, but without a seat at the decision-making table.
More to the point, there is no sign whatsoever that an EEA deal minus free movement would be on offer from the EU, both because of the risk of “contagion” – other countries seeking referendums on membership and special deals – and because the UK was already, to an extent, semi-detached in not being a member of either the Schengen zone or the euro. This special status is one reason why the immediate impact of the UK’s departure on the European Union may be less, as seen from Brussels, than from London. The UK was never a full member of the club, either for economic or security purposes."
I think this argument is quite interesting in the apparent "perception" people hold of the EU. It's a resistance to a political idea of the so-called "European Elites in Politics" despite the fact the UK is not very democratic in it's politics:-
Indeed the way the governments of the EU, of Greece or Spain or the UK all work is historically all of them very very suspect of quality (lack of it). Hence any vote against them if given directly would seem to be with good reason (common sense)?
In the above I have 2 retweets from completely opposite positions of support of Remain or Leave. The top one is visible and you can see that the Remain advocates are stewing about the lies of Vote Leave. For them they've made the fatal error without realizing it of a "WHO?" not a "WHAT?" problem to solve and indeed so to do too many on the Leave side...
Too many people fail to consider that both our Legacy News-Media and our Politicians make supporting statements or commentaries not on establishing "truth" (in so far as building a carefully researched argument using evidence) but on mixed motives that are not directly applicable to what is apparently being talked about. Corbyn is no exception in the above "mish-mash".
There was a very simple answer to these questions which is quite obvious given the use of lies and U-turns must exhaust "the credit of goodwill of the public" eventually:-
There is of course the necessity to understand the arguments as per the reactions of many different actors in the Brexit question conclusion, even if such actors in their own campaigning failed to understand this for themselves before becoming politically active (and hugely irresponsible also).
The above are major Labour Constituencies and the % of LEAVE votes: It's overwhelmingly obvious (if the picture is less blurry) that the voters who live in these usual Labour areas don't agree with the pig-headed leadership of the Labour leaders nor with the Establishment or government or other so-called VIP's who run the UK.
The odd thing is the obsession with those in charge with the identity of people and hence how they voted.
And such little regard for understanding the argument WHAT?
Let's start doing this again as a refresher:-
- The bigger the group does not necessarily mean "more right"
- The more officious or important the person in political eminence does not necessarily mean "more right", either.
So those concerned with the result of the referendum may wonder why does merely a few percentage points dictate Brexit to the rest of the 48%? It is indeed a flawed system, but it's also a direct vote not in isolation of the present time of EU Membership but of >40 years of this membership and we can use this information to feed into our decision-making using such as the politicians to illustrate for us:-
We're travelling back in time briefly to 1996 and 1997... the question is: "Does it all sound so familiar?"
The first thing to point out: "We had this Referendum and it's seed was planted in 1997 and it was delayed from happening for the EURO, EU Constitution, Lisbon Treaty and until finally 2016 on grounds that were more favourable to a Remain result via Cameron's timing and propaganda in power play.
Secondly we see the same arguments then as now.
Thirdly, we see that if the UK had really been at the heart of the EU as per Blair he had the mandate to achieve this with his huge support even if he eventually misused such support and the results are the wreakage of the Labour Party today under Corbyn's split with the Blairites.
This is evidenced in the reaction of the then EU leaders to the Labour victory.
We see what happened to the Tory splits after Maastricht now playing some couple of decades in delay in the Labour party due to the EU in part and in part the failure to address solvable problems to progress people - not political union.
I urge any readers to stop listening to the politicians games and the legacy news-media's entertainment industry output and to go and buy a copy of The Great Deception and understand "WHAT?" is the EU? Secondly concerning finding out where "things can be seen and understood" amidst this darkness in our politics:-
We have entered EU purgatory. Exit might mean heaven - or hell
Glow-worm glow in the dark