Friday, 28 December 2018

Queen and the Bish talk about "tribalism". The BBC's response is... erm... tribal.

Christmas Day was originally an ancient pagan festival of generally jovial equinox-related debauchery.  In later years, a bunch of extreme cultists - sometimes known as "Christian State", also known as the "Holy Roman Empire", apparently - culturally misappropriated said pagan festival by means of a Germanic Victorian ritual involving 12 sordid days of turkey sandwiches.  In more recent years, even the culturally misappropriated ex-pagan party got culturally re-misappropriated.  Corporates hijacked the ex-pagan, ex-Christian party converting it to a new, post-modern ritual of trashy consumerism - where success is measured by the number of transactions typed up into a spreadsheet - shallow celebrity, family rows over which social media channel to watch at the Christmas lunch table, and a politicised vulture-fest by the legacy mainstream media (largely feeding on itself).

The culturally misappropriated Christmas Day is a perfect opportunity for the Queen (the head of the British State and Church of England) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (the permanent secretary of the Church of England, with more political power than the Queen) to say something on the telly.  Although most of us ordinary taxpaying plebs were too busy having a blazing family row about what to return to to pay attention to either of them, some people would have watched them in their original broadcast.  Most of us would have caught the carefully re-spun headlines sensationalised by the legacy mainstream media.

Where is there a media performance to be re-spun, the legacy mainstream media will be there to re-spin it to meet the legacy mainstream media's own cynical agenda.  And, predictably, first past the line is the BBC.

From each media performance, two particular opportunities for some cynical re-spinning were:

"Perhaps part of that wisdom is to recognise some of life's baffling paradoxes, such as the way human beings have a huge propensity for good, and yet a capacity for evil. Even the power of faith, which frequently inspires great generosity and self-sacrifice, can fall victim to tribalism." (Queen)

"God’s language of love is exclusive. It requires us to forget other languages of hatred, tribalism, rivalry, political advantage and of materialism, pride, greed, and so many more." (Archbishop of Canterbury)
What each speaker intended is irrelevant.  The BBC took both media events, re-spinning each event to serve the BBC's long-preordained position of their beloved anti-Brexit agenda.

The BBC linked Queenie immediately to Brexit, cynically stating, "The monarch, 92, highlighted the importance of people with opposing views treating each other with respect.  It comes as Parliament remains divided over the PM's Brexit deal, as the UK prepares to leave the EU in March."  No reader/listener needed this spelling out to them, but in view of all other more important difficulties in the world, it is an extraordinarily tribal choice by the BBC editors to link Brexit unnecessarily to the Queen.  Thus the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism.

The BBC needed a bit of help from a Churchie stooge to link the Bish to Brexit.  The most confident unassisted spin of the BBC was the scribble, "While he [the Bish] did not specifically mention the UK's political future, he stressed the importance of the language of love replacing the language of conflict."  The BBC needed some helpful soundbitey gibberish techno-babble from another Bish, this one being the Bishop of London, Bishop Mullally. "Debates in politics around the EU referendum have created division," wrote the BBC as a terribly convenient quotation from the Bishop of London. "My belief is that diversity creates strong community; division weakens it."

From the two Bishs' words, the BBC thus promoted two narratives of its ideological agenda.  For the first narrative, the BBC allegedly managed to find somebody whose world view is allegedly soooo culturally Marxist that the speaker implied a series of re-bundled artificial distinctions between "diversity", "division" and "difference", loading the terms with unnecessary emotionalism.  Unbundle the artificial distinctions and the quotation is just plain nonsense (unless one takes the quotation as an advocacy of "divide-and-rule", a traditional position of the Church).  Allegedly.  Either the BBC correctly reported Bish Mullally's words, or made them up for her ('ere ya go, luv, read this aaaat").  Allegedly.  Howsoever justified, the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism, and even "found" another Bish to prop up the tribalism of the BBC's editorial policy.

For the second narrative, the BBC achieved a position of near-perfect cognitive dissonance.  Since before 2016, the BBC has always promoted the Remainiac cause, taking every opportunity to denigrate the fight for freedom from technocracy that the vote to leave ultimately represented, being careful to ensure that the denigration was done in the most "impartial" way possible, whilst blocking out any rational voices and non-metropolitan voices within the scope of the issue.  Again, the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism.

It looks like "taking back control" is going to be a much harder and longer job than any leave voter might have wanted to believe as at 23 June 2016.  Taxation without representation continues apace.  In the world of the legacy mainstream media, led by the taxpayer-funded BBC, tribalism lives on.

We can be confident that the BBC will continue to present all issues in a tribal, bi-polar way, to meet the BBC's own tribal requirements, for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, 27 December 2018

Open Skies agreements in place between UK and US? Is this even legal?

Mendacity continues.

If Sky is any credible yardstick, then in July 2017, some American airlines muttered something about the stark reality of the UK’s crashing out of the European Common Aviation Airspace (“ECAA”), and in November 2018, the UK & the US governments “agreed” an open skies deal between them.  Reuters has also reported the story, adding that the UK is engaged in serial bi-lateralism with other countries for air access.

It seems that Sky might be onto something.  Perhaps Sky fed from Reuters, or perhaps Sky read something from UK Gov itself, but on 28Nov2018, the UK government itself bragged about the US-UK Open Sky agreement.  Trade press (one example) jumped on the story on the same day (so no choreography there, then).

Has anybody told the UK government that, if it has indeed concluded trade deals with third countries before 29Mar2019, then UKGov has broken EU law?

TOFU Article 218 makes it very clear that only the EU may conclude commercial deals; the UK would have needed permission in an agreed Withdrawal Agreement to have opened negotiations for air access with third countries while the UK were still a member of the EU (until 29Mar2019).  The UK’s transgression in this respect will certainly have registered with European Commission and Remainiacs (such as Blair, Clegg, the litigious Miller et al): when (if?) Brexit comes closer to happening, we can be confident that Project Sabotage will be wheeled out once again to derail the UK’s new deals with third countries.

Could UKGov be so stupid?  Well, having invoked Article 50 without a viable plan to transition from EU member to EU non-member, the short answer is probably “yes”.  Or, as we can see with the currently proposed Withdrawal Agreement - and the cynical political engineering by the likes of May and Robbins to get to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement, including the scurrying back to Brussels to keep on negotiating even after the European Council approved the deal (in 30 minutes!) and closed the Commission’s mandate to negotiate - the longer answer is probably “no”, on the basis that an outcome must be seen to be impossible to justify an anti-democratic U-turn.  Hence why Project Sabotage is so important to Remainiacs.  It’s why Remainaics needed to exterminate EFTA/EEA as a means to implementing a sensible Brexit.  And, measured by their actions, May & Robbins are functionally Remainaics.

Meanwhile, on 19Dec2018, the European Commission published COM(2018) 890, “Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30
March 2019: Implementing the Commission’s Contingency Action Plan.”  This correctly reminds its readers - and anybody else, for that matter - that a “no-deal” Brexit would have the UK leave the EU along with all subsidiary agreements, including the ECAA.  As a result, airlines based in the UK would be instantly denied access to ECAA airspace and landing rights 11pm UK time 29Mar2019.  COM(2018) 890 announced temporary, transitional rules, to give EU operators enough time to close their operations with the UK tidily (pages 6-7).  The two transitional rules are:
     To the extent also granted by the UK to EU operators, to grant UK operators over-fly access and to grant UK operators emergency (non-scheduled) landings in EU airports for a maximum period of 12 months.
     To propose a regulation that assigns validity to UK holders of ECAA certifications for up to nine months to allow for some time to avoid a catch-22 situation regarding air safety regulation.

This announcement, along with much else in COM(2018) 890, is a list of the key things for the EU and the EU27 to do to withdraw tidily their affairs from the UK.  The sole reason for any of the transitional periods set out in COM(2018) 890 appears to be towards implementing the EU external border around the UK in manageable chunks.  From the perspective of the European Commission, this is the job that needs to be done.  From the perspective of the EU27, there are likely to be some unpleasant surprises following the implementation of COM(2018) 890.  Nothing insurmountable, for sure, but subtleties which will lay the groundwork for the EU to extend further into the sovereignty of the EU27, beyond that which any of the EU27 would have agreed with the UK as one of the EU28.

More short-term, without impact on sovereignty, trade flow will be the nastiest surprise, especially for those EU27 who need to import from the UK in the short-term.  The four areas to watch are air transport, road haulage, financial services and import/export of goods.  COM(2018) 890 is particularly oblique on page 7, where it says, “If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, all relevant EU legislation on imported goods and exported goods will apply as of the withdrawal date.”  This is an under-statement.  The EU27, not the EU, are responsible for Border Inspection Posts, so if the EU27 want to import - or need to import - from the UK, then they are already too late to build any useful mitigating measures to keep trade flowing.  This includes the EU’s external border in Eire with Northern Ireland.

COM(2018) 890 is unlikely to be the European Commission’s final word on the subject.  But it is nevertheless an interesting window into the mind of the EU.

Sunday, 23 December 2018

Common Purpose: the puppetmaster?

At first glance, others' analyses of Common Purpose smell right (see bibliography, below).

It is certainly feasible that one organisation can have pervasive, extra-system influence throughout an entire system of government, including its agencies.  Groupthink has no barriers.

The real concern is whether Agenda 21, now presumably replaced by Agenda 2030, is aiming to bring about long-term 0% growth, 0% interest rates and zero carbon emissions in an issue-illiterate way to bring about "sustainable development".  In the twisted mind of a Leftist, all economic activity is zero-sum, so 0% growth means no change, therefore is more likely to be "sustainable" than otherwise.

In others' analysis of Common Purpose, I find that the analyses describes what I observe.  So far, I cannot fault the analyses.  Common Purpose is an agent to bring about Agenda 2030.

As a useful by-product for the Leftists, the same 0% interest rates enables misappropriation of wealth from modestly wealthy savers (the poor-ish) via the wealthy reckless borrowers (the über-rich) to the banks (the ultimate debtor).  Leftists reckon that this is equality-of-outcome; normal people see it as feudalism and serfdom.

A better by-product for the Leftists is that the agenda's policy choices also lead to taxation without representation, equality-of-outcome, the abolition of meritocracy and, consequently, the de facto redundancy of democracy.  The end-games resemble a heap of Daleks ruling over masses of "upgraded" Cybermen.

All of a sudden, the context of the European Union looks all too clear.

But is this fair criticism?

Common Purpose's own publications


Frustratingly, Common Purpose's website doesn't seem bothered about defending itself, or even selling itself!  Does it reckons that its "graduates" are so deeply embedded into governmental systems that it's work is substantially done?

CP's own website contains little of any substance that a normal charity would publicise to prove its existence, or to drum up membership/sponsorship.  CP sounds coy about its alumni, its impact, its achievements.  Its message is a seemingly all over the place, a mishmash of subtle socialisation, some incomplete tangible achievements, general nonsense, a bit of psycho-babble, comprehensive missing-the-point and inadvertent admission of wrongthink.

Impact report 2017

CP's impact report of 2017 also fails to hit the spot.  Where one would expect a series of concrete, measurable deliverables being disclosed (i.e. "We did X which made Y happen which benefited Z people by enabling them to do W at time T"), instead we get:

  • "The programme helped me reflect on how I could create better ecosystems for promoting innovation."
  • "I think I’m so open minded, I try to be politically correct."
  • "Common Purpose is the organization par excellence, with the mission to put diversity at the heart of the leadership debate. What it does in practice—and in terms of walking the talk—is bring people from different communities, different sectors, different generations together to address the challenge and opportunity of leadership."

The third example above is classic Leftist gibberish used as a tool of socialisation.  It hits the right sound-bites, gives the reader the impression that the reader understands what they've read, but, actually, it says nothing useful to the reader.  The reader will only agree with the comment if the reader is pre-disposed emotionally to want to believe it.  Completely airbrushed out of that warm, fuzzy feeling is the measurable damage that Leftist policies - issue-illiteracy, wrongthink, equality-of-outcome-at-all-costs, Malthusian philosophy, diversity over meritocracy, identity politics over tangible achievements - aim to wreak over communities, sectors and generations.

One testimonial is worth quoting at length, because, at first sniff, sounds very close to being convincing.  Charles Asiedu, MD of Ecobank, said:
"I engaged the government agency responsible for the food procurement and suggested a collaborative approach involving the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the agency and Ecobank to resolve the food crisis. We brought the partners together and, after sharing what role we each thought we could play, together we designed a solution. Now we are mobilizing $50 million to support the importation of maize to help feed eight million Malawians. Prior to CSCLeaders I wouldn’t have thought more broadly about bringing in other partners to handle the crisis."
This simply doesn't make sense!  How did simply talking to other people who arguably should have already cared make a difference?  What was in the business interest of the other partners to engage in such solution, merely on the say-so of one bod from Ecobank?  The more one thinks about this example, the more a smell of something odious arises.

CP's impact report of 2017 also claims to have worked with 1,182 organisations, listing the most prestigious and well-known (PDF page 12).  It is nowadays quite common for private sector organisations to brag about their social activities ("corporate social responsibility", which is another tool of the same agenda to which CP is aligned).  There are quite a lot of banks on the list.  And these are the same banks who are so signed up to Leftist social justice that they tend to accumulate wealth at their customers' expense (customers' deposits taken, 0% interest returned to depositors, cash used to hedge purchase of assets anyway, erosion of cash value places net burden on depositor) and then expect their own corruption to be bailed-out at the taxpayers' expense.  The brazen display of such cognitive dissonance is remarkable: here, the banks are practising stealthy confiscation of wealth by rigging the monetary system, yet publicly supporting a charity that espouses equality-of-outcome.  The only way in which this couldn't be cognitive dissonance is that the equality-of-outcome is "all equally poor and enslaved to a capitalist master".

Without irony, CP even names Deutsche Bank as one of the prestigious organisations with which CP has worked!  Is this the very same Deutsche Bank which, in 2016, the German government was planning to bail-out but which the same government realised it probably couldn't afford to do so?  Oops.  Puts the European Union's state-aid rules to the test, doesn't it?  By contrast, what's really going on - stripping out politico crap - is explained by the MoneyGPS (12 minute video, source Bloomberg).  It's difficult to say whether Deutsche Bank is a good advert for CP.  On the one hand, DB represents the very model of financial impropriety, to the extent that a government looks set to change its own rules to fudge the issue.  So much for the rule of law.  Not a good advert for CP.  On the other hand, DB represents such an elegant way to defraud the people - laundering the peoples' gains away from the via the official banking system - that it is perhaps the best advert for aggressive, goalpost-moving socialism that could ever have been invented.  Marx and Trotski would have been so proud.  So perhaps a brilliant advert for CP, after all.

Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose (disclosed by own website)

CP UK discloses - as it is lawfully obliged to do - its corporate status.  It also discloses its charitable status.  Its UK company number is 3556983.  Its UK charity number is 1023384.  It also has a Scottish charitable registration, SCO41166.

A search for "Common Purpose" at Companies House lists six entities with "common purpose" in the name, sharing the same registered address, Monmouth House, 38-40 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LS. (As at 23Dec2018).

A search for "Common Purpose" at the UK Charity Commission lists three registrants with "common purpose" in the name that look related to CP.

According to the annual report of 2017, CP UK's turnover was £1.7m (2016: £1.9m), of which £1.2m was course fees (2016: £1.1m).

I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers actually cast.  1900673+1709358=3610031, but 1747658-1785260=-37602.  The use of brackets seems to be negligently inconsistent.  2016's annual report didn't appear on CP's website as at 23Dec2018.

The balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was in net deficit, £100,624 (2016: £63,022).  In spite of this, the trustees believed that the entity was a going-concern.  One would the trustees to say where the money comes from, but the trustees don't reveal this.  Instead, the entity discloses its ultimate controlling entity as Common Purpose Charitable Trust ("CPCT").

Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose Charitable Trust

CPCT is a company limited by guarantee.  Its company number is 02832875 and it uses the same charity number as above, 1023384.

CPCT discloses no list of members, as befits a private company.  In its Persons of Significant Control 03Jul2016 in an annual confirmation statement of 08Jul2016, "The company knows or has reasonable cause to believe that there is no registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company."  However, the PSC legislation caught quite a few people out.  Julia Middleton was the Person of Significant Control with effect from the regulation's effective date of 06Apr2016 to 03Jul2016.  Middleton was a registered officer of the CPCT, no longer is, yet CP holds her out as the "founder and chief executive".  Normally, a chief executive would be a currently registered director of a company.  Middleton isn't a director of CP (company 3556983) either, but she is listed as one of three people of significant control for CP (company 3556983).  As at 23Dec2018, Middleton has a total of nine past and present directorships.

CPCT's turnover was £5m in the year ending 31Jul2017 (2016: £4.7m).  In both years, course fees represented the largest plurality of income, with "income from non-UK bodies" comprising the second largest plurality of income.  2017 saw a significant increase in "other trading activities" relative to 2016.

There is no segmental analysis by geography or by function to understand the "income from non-UK bodies".  This doesn't smell right, especially for a Leftist organisation whose soulmates include the Tax Justice Network.  Here is a report from the TJN lamenting the lack of global corporate transparency, co-funded by the European Union.  The difference between what the Leftist TJN preaches and what the Leftist CPCT practices is quite stark.

Again, I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers cast: 4740733-5321632=-580899, not -581971 as reported.

CPCT's balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was £0.8m (2016: £0.5m).  Operating cash flow was £-0.8m (2016: £0.13m).  CPCT employed 68 people in both years.  The simple average salary is £33,793pa, but the disclosure of 9 highly-paid individuals means that the lowest salaries are considerably lower than the simple average salary.  Social justice in action?

CPCT discloses no ultimate controlling entity.

Charity Commission disclosures

The registered aim of CPCT is:
"CPCT oversees the activities of CPUK, CP International,CP Customised Ltd, CP Global Customised and CP Asia Pacific. It safeguards brands, intellectual property, web domain names and trademarks, holds the overall strategic plan and supports the alumni. Our educational courses give people the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society."
This sounds much more corporate than a "real" charity that us ordinary plebs would recognise as a charity.  The last sentence is cynically vague.


No wonder democracy feels frayed and exploited.

There is a strong whiff of the Leftists' "old boys network" about Common Purpose, an ideal vehicle whereby the ideology of Cultural Marxism can be spread, to perpetuate issue-illiterate policy choices at government level, to lock in corporate corruption, to lock out democratic control, to achieve the perfect state of taxation-without-representation, the global Soviet.  Leadership and training for the parasites of any political system.

Common Purpose makes no attempt to debunk allegations of its ulterior motives.  On the contrary, Common Purpose continues to evangelise diversity over meritocracy, socialisation over rationality, emotionalism over empiricism.  The only possible consequence of this evangelism is the promotion issue-illiterate policies and related groupthink.

Given Leftists' dire hatred of Vladimir Putin, the nature of Common Purpose is enough to make a normal, ordinary pleb wonder whether Putin has a valid point after all.

Bibliography: (see also the annotation from clothcap on 04Oct2010)

Monday, 26 November 2018

One size does not fit all: GDPR, family trees, employment law and financial services.

Everybody loves certainty.  Everybody positively adores predictability and forseeability.

So the notion that the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679) ("GDPR") has swept some degree of certainty into data transactions must be a good thing, right?


But what if the certainty is fake?  Or does not resemble reality closely enough to be a useful instruction?

The economic objective of GDPR: an overhead barrier to entry

To those who have already read GDPR, and/or implemented it in the private sector workplace, one already knows the real economic interest that the EU had to introduce GDPR.

Aside from playing trade politics with America, GDPR de facto requires all Data Controllers to compile contemporaneous documentation to prove the Data Controller's innocence in advance of any claims/investigations arising.  Data Protection By Design, remember (the Precautionary Principle for data)?

And, of course, documentation is inherently a manual task, therefore expensive, and must be funded by means of overhead resources.  Which means that GDPR has become traditional European form of protectionism: a barrier to entry via an obligation to have bloated overheads.

How effective is GDPR?

As to the actual effectiveness of GDPR on protecting personal data of EU member nation citizens, the jury is still out.

The European Commission is not currently satisfied with the American approach to data protection.  One lawyers' public report of 02Sep2018 pointed to a growing unease in Europe about the enforceable adequacy of the EU-US Privacy Shield  (EU, wiki).

In part, this is presumably down to the sheer impossibility of getting Americans to understand anything that doesn't fit into their own pre-conceived, bureau-legalistic outlook on the world (as the IAPP lamented on 20Jan2018, "Explaining GDPR to an American"; my response: best of luck, lots of patience... and breeeeathe...).

How workable is GDPR?  Alien law in foreign courts?

The challenge of explaining Napoleonic code mentality to a common-law American lawyer is one of the major challenges that European jurisprudence faces in the wider, non-European world.

The tick-box absolutism of EU rules, directives and regulations has been a challenge for the British (and will remain so after the fake-Brexit of 29Mar2019 asunder the Withdrawal Agreement of Nov2018).

So how the same tick-box absolutism will square up to, say, Chinese jurisprudence is going to be more than merely entertaining.

Absolutism = absurd outcomes

The core problem for the Europeans is that the absolutism of GDPR results in absurd outcomes.  GDPR does not accommodate the Anglo-Saxon legal concept of "reasonableness", largely in part because GDPR is based upon a Germanic model of data protection, enforced by a European political system based on France's fourth republic.

The absurdity arises because the rules are designed to fit too narrow range of objective outcomes, with an even narrower range of method by which to achieve the too narrow range of objective outcomes.

The range of outcomes is narrow because of the underlying ideology, contaminated by corporatist lobbying along the way.

The net result is that GDPR serves as much as barrier to trade/entry as it does some limited protection of personal data.

Like all EU regulation, it meets some of its retail objectives, but at hidden costs to the consumer that the typical consumer might have re-considered had they the choice about whether to implement the regulation.

One such cost to the consumer - and therefore also to the value-chain of producers - is the narrow range of prescribed uses of personal data.

Consumer impact: case 1, Facebook et al

GDPR is designed primarily with discriminating against Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple, to ensure that they cannot re-sell personal data of EU member nation citizens without the citizen knowing.

Of course, the care that the EU has for us ordinary taxpaying plebs is as miserably low as any tin-pot civil servant within any of the EU member nations.  The real issue for the EU is to stack Facebook et al with a tonne of irrecoverable overheads that are fundamentally tied to the core of their business, to reduce their profitability, to reduce the perceived viability of operating in the EU and/or with personal data of EU member nation citizens.

Has GDPR successfully constrained Facebook's re-sale of personal data?  Facebook is, for the moment (Nov2018) seemingly evading any meaningful investigation, but others claim to find that Facebook is hiding known breaches of GDPR.  TechRepublic summarised the chronology on 25Oct2018.

Consumer impact: case 2, the consumer's employer

GDPR specifically did not address situations where data processing is inevitable, but otherwise unrelated to internet-based consumer services.

For example, take a business running in a business-to-business market, with no consumer customers.

GDPR applies to this business as much as it does to Facebook.  It's exposure to GDPR is much smaller than it would be for Facebook, i.e. Facebook is both a Data Controller and a Data Processor.  But the small business is probably only a Data Controller, who sub-contracts the payroll to a Data Processing payroll bureau.  But, like Facebook, the small business needs to prepare tonnes of documentation to prove its innocence well in advance of something bad happening.

For those in English jurisprudence, the precautionary elements of GDPR make compliance with it the same as that of health & safety risk assessments, or fire risk assessments.  In effect, GDPR requires data risk assessments, even if the risk is self-evidently zero.  Don't assume, just keep typing (even if it detracts from running your business).

Consumer impact: case 3, a family tree

For another example, take a family that seeks to centralise its family history.

The collation of family history of dead relatives is not a problem under GDPR, and can be done on paper or digitally.

The problem comes with living relatives.

The compilation of a family tree containing personal data of living relatives cannot meet a single basis of lawful processing asunder GDPR Article 6:

  • there is no documented consent mechanism within a family: a consent mechanism could be built, but, only at humongous cost.  As at Nov2018, what software available on the market does that, and how could it work if one member of the family refuses (or cannot) use the internet?  
  • there is no contract to perform: a contract between family and member could be drafted, but it would be an absurdity;
  • there is no legal obligation on the family to compile its family history;
  • there are few cases where a family history would be vital to the interests of the Data Subject, except to track medical conditions.  Ironically, this a form of Special Data Processing subject to even more restrictions asunder GDPR Article 9.
  • there are no de facto legitimate interests that the family archivist could have to record personal data of Data Subjects, especially regarding minors (children).
And yet, much of the basic data that would justify a Data Regulator prosecuting the Data Controller (family archivist) is typically available from the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.  Ah, but they are state agencies, aren't they, so they enjoy a different legal system to that which the state inflicts on us ordinary plebs, don't they?

The blindingly obvious absurdity arises over time.  The generation that first compiles its family tree might be the easiest if they consent unanimously.  Fine.  But that might include their children, who may be too young to grant consent.  After a few years of wilful non-compliance with GDPR, the children grow up, mate with a complete stranger and spawn.  The archivist wants to record the mate and the spawn on the family tree.  And this decision by the archivist lays a landmine for the future, waiting to be triggered.

Roll-forward one more generation, and the family archivist - by then an elderly person - is unlikely to have met the full range of grand-children that the extended family would have spawned, especially if there were more than one child in the other families married into the family.  Yet, the same archivist will have wanted to document all of them to keep the family tree complete.  Managing consent would be a slight nightmare.  All it would take is a small family tiff, an unexpected discovery that a family archivist was recording data about the wider family, and then the archivist would be slapped with a Data Subject Erasure Request from the offended distant relative.  The Request would likely be followed by a notice of investigation from the Data Regulator.  Where, would demand the regulator of the archivist, is the signed proof that the mate and spawn consented to their personal data being in your hands?  Thus the archivist steps onto his own landmine (remember that?).  Oops.  Good luck defending against that one.

The European Right to be Forgotten

Taken in combination with the Copyright Directive (a proposal as at Nov2018) and the Right to be Forgotten (Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (2014), partially codified in GDPR, wiki), we stare at a European jurisprudence that demands its populace zombies-out.  Literally, to throw its brains and memories out of the window, never to be used ever again.

How absurd is this outcome?  Yet, it is an inevitable consequence of European law.  Arguably a public choice to dumb down the population.  It makes it much easier for cultural Marxists to re-write history when the history has been erased by due process of law.

Making financial services to make employment hard again

Such absurdities undermine the integrity of the woolly concepts within GDPR.

The definitions of Data Subject, Data Controller and Data Processor sort-of make commercial sense in a simple commercial environment governed by one, or two, contracts of service.  But they don't work competently in a non-contractual environment like a family tree.

More pressingly, they don't work in a commercial environment where there are multiple intermediaries required to deliver a service to the end-consumer.  This is most acutely felt in the financial services industry.

Personal accident and travel insurance: the story of the customer's employee

Take a medium-sized business whose employees travel abroad for business travel.  The company needs to arrange some sort of travel insurance for its operations, to cover its employees.  The company might approach an insurer directly, but that is often impracticable (and undesirable, for both insured and insurer!), so most companies would use an insurance broker.  The insurer is regulated as a producer of financial services.  The broker is regulated as an intermediary of financial services.  The company is the end-user, and, in this context, is defined as "retail" asunder financial services law (MIFID).

So far, so good.  But translate these agents to GDPR, and the issue arises almost instantly.

The employee is clearly the Data Subject.  The employer is the Data Controller.  The insurer is.... erm... what, exactly?  A Data Processor?  No: the insurer is not being asked to receive personal data, churn it, and return it back in a particular form.  A Data Controller?  By default, it must be, because it's handling personal data.  That means that the broker is also a Data Controller, right?  Well, maybe not, because the broker is converting personal data from the employer into a format that the insurer might understand.  Umm..... but there is no contract between broker and insurer relating to data processing.... so does that mean the broker is really a Data Controller, or a non-compliant Data Processor?

So far, so bad.  But it gets worse.  During a business trip to America, the employee stubs his toe on an airline chair.  He claims on the employer's travel insurance.  To do so, he would (nowadays) need to have installed the insurer's travel agent's app on his smartphone (let's assume it's a dedicated company-owned smartphone, to keep this absurdity as simple as possible) and claim from there.  But how does the insurer's travel agent identify the employee as being an employee of the insured company?  Ah.  Well, ultimately, the employer is the Data Controller responsible, and the employee's details would have originated from the employer (most likely, the employee probably registered his smartphone app with the travel agent's claim service on instruction from his employer).  But however the personal data got passed to the travel agent, it's impossible to characterise the relevant agencies in the service chain cleanly between Controllers or Processors, or Joint Processors.  Or a hybrid.  Which GDPR doesn't define!

And it gets worse still.  Having stubbed his toe, the following day, the poor mush suffers a stroke while in America.  The American emergency services rush his wallet to hospital, desperate to find a travel insurance card to prove that the patient can afford to pay for his treatment.  But this is a European insurer: it's paperless (prior to the business trip, the employer told the employee to protect his personal data, so don't print anything out that comprises the safety of your personal data).  The only evidence of insurance is on the employee's smartphone.  Only the employee knows the 4-digit PIN to unlock the smartphone.  But the employee is unconscious.  All the hospital knows is the employee's name and nationality, because - thankfully - his passport is still a physical document.  But the delay caused by finding a way to get paid was a fatal choice by the hospital for the employee, and the employee dies later that day.  The issue is now to repatriate his body to his home country, with only his passport as a form of identity.  The American hospital now needs to breach just about every rule in GDPR to find out who the guy was, where he came from, who employed him, who insured him, who his next of kin is, where the next of kin lives, to where the body needs repatriating... And all GDPR can do is fudge it: GDPR apparently doesn't apply to dead people.  So that's alright then.

Other financial intermediaries

Insurance is the most likely area where the abnormal European mentality of "one size fits all" within GDPR causes more problems than it solves, with a wide range of absurdities waiting in the wings for future court cases to determine.  Travel insurance covering travel to non-EEA states without "adequacy assessments" by the European Commission are just the tip of this particular iceberg.

Beyond insurance, credit reference agencies, money-laundering agencies, credit/liquidity agencies (including credit unions), investment manufacturers ("PRIIPS"), pension providers, annuity providers and identity agencies (in states where the state provides no identity confirmation as a service, normally in common-law legal systems) are all processes which require data processing necessarily without the consent of the Data Subject, but whose operations are prescribed by law only as objectives, not methods (methods would be implied by case law, tort of negligence, i.e. "Would a reasonable credit reference agency think such a shoddy job was acceptable?").

In the instances listed above, the certainty imbued by GDPR's "reasonable" concepts is a false and fake certainty.  The real world does not comply with the childlike innocence of GDPR's noddyesque concepts.

The issue for financial services is so cloudy that a lawyer wrote up a pre-sales script for impacted parties to consider.

Impacts on mergers, acquisitions and capital markets?

A fundamental tenet of capitalism is that under-performing companies are bought up by aggressive buyers, turn the company around (or break its weak management up), and re-sell it.

In such deals, the names and positions of senior management are shared between buyer and seller, typically with such secrecy so as not to pervert the management decisions of the managers under discussion.

Necessarily, the sharing of the names - personal data - happens without the Data Subject's express consent.  It has no bearing to either the vital interests of the Data Subject, or the legitimate interests of the Data Subjects.

So, by virtue of normal operations, a merger/acquisition deal invariably - and unavoidably - breaches GDPR.

What would be the fix?  Under GDPR, the seller would need to obtain explicit consent from its employees whose names are to be shared with the buyer.  Were this to happen - especially for listed companies - the risk of insider trading would magnify considerably.  The confidentiality of the deal would be blown, and, consequently - especially for German capitalists - the oh-so-precious stability of equity markets would be in tatters.  Worse, if the management holds so much of the share capital, the deal would require a mechanism so far not yet designed to enable the transaction to happen at all.

There is no provision within GDPR for such circumstances, and no means of complying with both GDPR and current merger/acquisition customs.  GDPR thus appears arbitrary, wholly disconnected from the real world to which it supposedly relates.

This means that GDPR wilfully did not consider these circumstances during its design.  This much is quite obvious from a simple read of GDPR.  Or, more cynically, it could be that GDPR was designed to impede capital markets.  This much is likely when considering the mercantalist and protectionist outlooks of the top two EU member nations.

Vicarious liability under employment law

On 01Dec2017, in the case of various claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket plc, the High Court held in favour of the claimants, resulting in Morrisons being vicariously liable for a data breach that a rogue employee wilfully committed as an act of revenge against his employer.  The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgement (no online document from the court as at 25Nov2018; technical overview from a lawyer); Morrisons is said to plan a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Irrespective of the chain of logic used by the courts to upload Morrisons as vicariously liable for the torts of the criminal offender, the point is that the courts have pinned the blame for a criminal act on the employer.  In the High Court's judgement, paras 72-73 set out the chain of complacency that the court held against Morrisons, specifically that Morrisons failed to deploy the appropriate level of snooping, spying, repeated investigations (presumably without due cause), clairvoyance and omnipotence to have assessed the risk of the employee's foreseeable criminal actions.  It was apparently Morrisons' fault not to have correctly guessed what the rogue employee was going to do.

Reasonableness - a core concept in English law - longer matters, even when considering tort of negligence in a case of this topic (judgement para 67, "The seventh principle [of data protection] does not impose a duty to take "reasonable car" as such.  Those words do not appear in the Statute.  This might suggest that the draftsman was aiming at a rather different target when he required that "appropriate" measures to be taken").

Indeed, from this judgement, we can reasonably (how ironic!) deduce that European jurisprudence is substantially more about the ticking of boxes, so if there is no box available to accommodate the messiness of real life, so be it.  The judgement even explains what real life entailed in this case (para 75, the testimony of Morrisons' officer responsible for data security): "it is impossible for any sizeable data controller completely to exclude the risk that data may be compromised, for example as a result of a criminal hack of its IT systems or the criminal misuse of data by its own employees."  The court accepted this testimony (para 80), but it appears to have no impact on Morrisons' defence.

In a common law environment, the absurdity of GDPR's implementation in the Morrison case enables the claimant to fish around for the deepest pockets for breach of their privacy asunder GDPR, but for which there is no evidence that such breach resulted in foreseeable costs to the claimants.

And yet... in para 103 is the double-irony: "The Bluecoat server [firewall] keeps a record of every website request made by the end user.  Thus, if an authorised person wishes to know what an individual employee has attempted to look at on the internet at work, it is technically possible to get Bluecoat to provide a list."  The court ended up upholding vicarious liability against Morrisons because it didn't systematically snoop for stuff that failed an unspecified sniff test.  So much for privacy!  What was GDPR for...?!

The case underlines the fake certainties embedded within GDPR's vague definitions and relationships between concepts (sort-of) defined in GDPR.  GDPR makes no attempt to be compatible with any other statute in any other legal system, so wilfully disregards reality outside the immediate environs of GDPR.

Accordingly, the case also underlines the perversion of common law by GDPR, its underlying Napoleonic nature, and similar for all law originating from the European Union. 


While the professions struggle with making GDPR workable in the real world, no-body seeks to make the case that GDPR is the wrong tool for the wrong job.

As the world's first data protection law, it pioneers a way to protect data.  But the way is backwards, so poorly designed and so poorly thought through that it provides a legal mechanism for the continuing censorship of the people, the propping-up of artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace, the monopolisation of consumer services, the protection of incumbent economic operators (far more effectively than protecting Data Subjects' personal data) and a march towards the silencing of opposition to cultural Marxism and political communism.  One size does indeed not fit all.

What started as a good idea by the innocents has been perverted by lobbyists and ideologues at the European level into an insidious form of state control, resulting in a minor war between state and IT sector as to whom has the right to subjugate the masses.  The IT sector has embarrassed the state, for showing how subjugation can be done bloodlessly; the state is jealous that the IT sector knows more about the state's serfs than the state does.

The lesson of GDPR - that one size does not fit all - will likely apply to any number of regulations in any number of jurisdictions, not just the European Union.  But for a such modern proto-state, it is unreasonable to expect the EU still to be using the tools of mid-20th century to progress its agenda.  That the EU chooses still to work in mid-20th century says an awful lot about the evil, longer-term objectives of the statist-globalists who continue to steer the EU towards its sinister end-game against the citizens of its ill-fated member nations.

End of post.

Sunday, 25 November 2018

The political declaration of UK & EU: a continuation of narcisstic globalism

The Political Declaration Setting Out the Framework for the Future Relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom ("PD") underpins of the Withdrawal Agreement ("WA").

The scope of the PD - that is, the scope of the future relationship between the UK and EU - is more-or-less that of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union ("TOFU").

Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that, to the extent that the TOFU is objectively the supremacy of corruptible technocracy over decentralised democracy, the PD aims to repeat exactly the same anti-democratic mistakes as the European integrationist project.

The extent to which the UK and EU appear ready to continue wasting valuable resources on their narcissistic vanity projects is set out consistently throughout the PD.   An easy example to grasp is clause 79 (title XIV, "level playing field for open and fair competition").  Translated into plain English, this clause declares the UK's intention to follow the same policy mistakes as the EU and other international bodies in respect of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change and relevant tax matters.  Presumably, this choice shall include any pseudo-scientific "evidence" to prop up the pre-determined policy choice, and then use the "precautionary principle" for anything that needs making-up.  Therefore, any opportunity that the UK could spot, and which the EU is too slow/stupid/corrupt to adopt, shall be effectively denied under the intentions of this PD.

This is another incident that typifies the whole problem of the European project.  Its default policy choice of a monopolistic "one size fits all", combined with its willingness to listen only to corporate lobbyists, choosing policies that suppress better-value alternatives to the existing dominant oligarchs (often by means of policies that create artificially bloated overhead costs to create a barrier to entry into the market) shall aid significantly to the slow death of Europe as we know it, and its relegation to a future "developing" economy.

As a by-product - a by-product! - one can say definitively that the substance of Brexit shall not happen.  As a consequence, none of the advantages and opportunities of deviating from the cynical agenda of Marxist globalisation shall be within reach.  Brexit shall be a technicality that somehow allows the gravy train to continue, necessarily at the expense of us ordinary taxpaying plebs.

For matters European, therefore, the ordinary British taxpaying pleb is in a situation of taxation with substantially zero representation.

The war of the state against its own people might just have well be published as a headline in the Daily Mail.

Sunday, 18 November 2018

The draft Withdrawal Agreement: a betrayal... of both Remainers and Brexiteers

The Withdrawal Agreement ("WA") comprises:

  • 585 pages (many of which are half-pages, as befits a draft document, lots of white space between paragraphs);
  • 6 parts;
  • 21 titles;
  • 18 chapters;
  • 19 annexes (of which 9 are to the WA and 10 are to one protocol within the WA);
  • 11 parts.

It comes across as a technical document, but it contains technical choices with profound - therefore political - implications.


The WA's basic approach is enforce EU law - the EU's acquis - onto the UK from the date of the WA.

The ambition is presumably to have the whole of the EU acquis replaced by alternative treaties by the end of the transitional period 31 December 2020.

The WA defines a Joint Committee of EU & UK to agree to terminate parts of the WA when the UK & the EU have established the necessary replacement treaties ("the future relationship", implied within Protocol on Northern Ireland, Article 6).

By its nature, the Joint Committee works on joint agreement.  Foreseeably, the EU would agree only when it is in the EU's interests to agree.  This implies that the EU's political and commercial objectives are met only when the UK has bound itself into the same policy choices as those of the EU.  Deviation from the worst excesses of poor EU policy choice is thus practically impossible for the foreseeable future.  This is bad news.

Just in case the Joint Committee cannot see EU acquis having into treaties during the transition period ending 31 December 2020, the Joint Committee may extend the transitional period once, at any time before 01 July 2020, to a currently unspecified date ("31 December 20XX") [part 4, article 132].

In addition, the WA provides the start of "third country" arrangements regarding trade of live animals, germinal products and animal products.  This sets up the transition period to be one of obligations on UK, without the benefits for having met such obligations (i.e. one-sided obligations).  This is very bad news.

Throughout the transition period, the EU may change its laws in any way that it sees fit, in accordance with its own procedure and political preference.  This is normal process for the EU.  But those changes in law then become binding on the UK, even though the UK would have had either diminished or zero influence on the choice of those laws.  This is very, very bad news.

Some aspects of the WA remain enforceable for 4 years after the end of the transitional period, notionally 31 December 2020, but, in fact, whenever the Joint Committee cynically wants to pick "31 December 20XX".  This is very, very, very bad news.

The European Central Bank is exempt from any conformity assessment and/or licencing that the UK may require.  This is a salutary reminder of how the banksters are still gaming the political system, and lobbying hard to preserve the right to parasitise the ordinary taxpaying pleb.  This is very, very, very, very bad news.

Thus, the WA meets the commercial, financial, strategic and political objectives of the European Union.  In effect, it sets out a method - a process - by which to "hollow out" any residual resources and sovereignty of the UK, to ensure that, whatever the British demos vote for, there shall be taxation without meaningful representation.

Does it meet Remainaics' objectives?

A shibboleth of the Remain campaign has always been that Europe is all about trade, and nothing else.  Let's examine this aspect of the WA.

Objectively, in all treaties, a useful trade policy requires strategic sacrifice of sovereignty.

Thus, the WA contains an unpleasant surprise to the gullible Remainiac: the WA goes well beyond the open-ended sacrifice demanded by the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union ("TOFU").

The effect of the WA is to sabotage, potentially forever, UK's ability to conduct its own commercial policy.

For those Remainiacs who felt that economics was all that mattered, this WA ultimately gives them what they want: the permanent crippling of UK's ability to conduct a useful commercial policy at all.

That this ultimately hollows out the interests of the Remainiacs themselves is, of course, one of the greatest ironies of the whole UK v EU issue, but one would not expect gullible Remainiacs to analyse this irony (let alone understand it).

Actually, it goes beyond Remainiacs' objectives

The Rt Hon Kenneth Clark was once reported to have said that he looked forward to the day that the UK Parliament was nothing more than a council chamber meeting in Brussels.  With this WA, there would be no need for the UK to occupy even a small council chamber's broom cupboard in Brussels.

Because the WA provides for the UK to be bound by changes in the EU acquis during the transitional period, it gives the EU the ability to take a short-cut to deepening political integration.

The short-cut mechanism looks fairly easy for the EU to invoke, subject to its own speed of changing or introducing EU acquis.

In effect, the WA converts the UK into the same vassal state as any Member Nation would ultimately become as a consequence of deepening political integration.

And, of course, the WA provides a suitable legal mechanism for the UK to pay for the Single European Army (at least in part) while it is subject to the vassal nature of the (never-ending?) transitional period.

Thus, the WA is a tool of accelerated integration.  Integration is quicker because the WA by-passes the procedures/protocols set out in the TOFU et seq.

Far from Brexit In Name Only ("BRINO"), the WA is actually the basis of an accelerated anti-Brexit!

Does it meet UKGov's objectives?

We know that the British establishment is a Remainiac establishment.

Its objectives are to lock-in political privilege (along with the accompanying gravy train) for itself, necessarily at the expense of us ordinary taxpaying plebs, resulting in taxation without meaningful representation.

No part of the WA could be rationally upheld as a departure from the EU.  The WA provides a framework for mis-appropriating wealth from ordinary taxpaying plebs to the cynical, sinister, parasitic elite, undermining the functional objectives of Brexit for all leave voters, resulting in the most stitched-up vassal state in modern "democratic" history.

Thus, the WA meets the political objectives of the British establishment.

What are the implications on ordinary taxpaying plebs?

Accordingly, the WA is, in effect, a declaration of war by the UK establishment against us, its own taxpaying plebs.  It is type of financial serfdom akin to that in the Russian Czarist empire.

All of this could have been avoided had the UK opted for the European Free Trade Area, signed the European Economic Area and invoked Articles 112-114 to provide immediate relief for immigration issues.

That the Remainaics poisoned the EFTA/EEA option and instead schemed towards the WA reveals the despicable nature of the Remainiacs' sickening ideology against the economic and democratic welfare of us ordinary plebs.  Truly evil people.

UKGov continues to have:

  • no strategy within the EU;
  • even less of a strategy outside of the EU; and
  • no strategy to avoid a civil war in UK.

Bootnote: the UK media

Since the publication of the WA, the UK has consistently reported that it is "500 pages long".

It's actually 585 pages long, so perhaps the miserable hacks would have rounded it up to 600?

But, naaah, the miserable hacks could even get this detail right.

Technical references

  • Preamble, "CONSIDERING that there is a need for both the United Kingdom and the Union to take all necessary steps to begin as soon as possible after 29 March 2019 the formal negotiations of one or several agreements governing their future relationship with a view to ensuring that, to the extent possible, those agreements apply from the end of the transition period,"
  • Part 1, Article 4, paras 2-5.
  • Part 2, Title 3, Article 30, paras 2 & 4.
  • Part 2, Title 3, Article 33, para 1.
  • Part 2, Title 3, Article 39.
  • Part 3, Title 1, Article 41, para 3.
  • Part 3, Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 87, paras 1-2.
  • Part 3, Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 89, para 1.
  • Part 3, Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 93, para 1.
  • Part 3, Title 13, Article 123, para 1, last sentence.
  • Part 4, Article 127, para 2.
  • Part 4, Article 129, paras 1-2.
  • Part 4, Article 132, paras 1-2.
  • Part 6, Title 2, Article 164, all of it.
  • Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Article 1, para 4.
  • Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Article 6, para 1.
  • Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Annex 2, Article 3, para 1.
  • Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Annex 2, Article 4, para 1, 3.

Monday, 12 November 2018

Vacuum-cleaner-gate: the European Commission allowed another "dieselgate"

On 08Nov2018, the General Court of the European Union held that:

Since the [European] Commission adopted a method for calculating the energy performance of vacuum cleaners based on an empty receptacle, the General Court holds that that method does not comply with the essential elements of the directive.

At issue was the European Commission's choice to measure the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners in a manner inconsistent with European law.

Dyson argued that the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 6665/2013 of 03May2013 was inconsistent with Directive 2010/30/EU.  The Directive requires a method of testing a vacuum cleaner's performance in a manner reflecting normal conditions of use.  But the Regulation provides for a testing regime only with an empty dust receptacle.  As a consequence, Dyson argued that this would mislead consumers.

The General Court dismissed Dyson's arguement on 11Nov2015.  Dyson appealed to the Court of Justice, which on 11May2017, told the General Court to get it right.

How could the European Commission have created a Regulation that was so wilfully disobedient with the European Parliament's Directive?

The General Court doesn't say, but Dyson is less diplomatic.  Reported by Sky, Dyson said:

"The lab tests for the energy label do not reflect real use as EU law requires they must, and the EU label flagrantly discriminated against a specific technology - Dyson's patented cyclone. 
"This benefited traditional, predominantly German, manufacturers who lobbied senior commission officials."

What proof exists to support this, I don't know.  Even so, the stench of corruption is all too obvious.

Dyson went further:

"Some manufacturers have actively exploited the regulation by using low motor power when in the test state, but then using technology to increase motor power automatically when the machine fills with dust - thus appearing more efficient. 
"This defeat software allows them to circumvent the spirit of the regulation, which the European Court considers to be acceptable because it complies with the letter of the law."

This is quite believable.  The parallels with the same type of cheating on controls of diesel emissions from cars are striking.

It makes it very difficult to justify membership of the European Economic Area when one of the central regulators of the EEA is so prone to lobbying by business interests to ban competition.  This cannot be in the interests of consumers, or of the environment where the competition is more efficient and more ecologically sound than the complacent, but corrupt, incumbents.

So who would ever want to vote in favour of membership in such a cartel-creating bureaucracy?


Sunday, 11 November 2018

Project Sabotage: Londoners move out of the city, into the provinces

According to a survey by estate agents Hampton International, Londoners are on the move.  The press release appears to be dated Feb-Mar 2018; it was publicised as bait-for-the-masses on LBC in the afternoon of Sun 27Aug2018.

The bait was quite tasty, thank you very much.  So here goes some indigestion...

Base analysis

Of Londoners selling their properties located in London's prime areas, the largest plurality re-located to elsewhere in the South East of England, well within London's commuting zone.  As they did so, they spent more.  They got more for their money, so were prepared to pay more overall.

This puts an upward pressure onto housing in extra-London South East England.  It suggests that Londoners are poor negotiators, thinking that lazy plutocracy is more valuable than the hard work of doing a good deal.  Every over-priced house that these Londoners bought - and they will have done - raises the asking price for all properties in the same area, raising the goalposts for the locals.  This means that a local family's children will have to keep on saving forever for a deposit that shall never be enough, ever.

Of Londoners selling their properties located in London's non-prime areas, the greatest plurality re-located to the East of England (East Anglia and Hertfordshire).  Laughably, the survey attributed price being a main factor in the choice of destination.  Particularly worrying were the (apparently) statistically significant number of non-prime Londoners moving to the Midlands and the North West.

How is this bad for Brexit?

The main headline to consider is that London is overwhelmingly Leftist and Remainiac, whereas the provinces are largely conservative, apolitical and sceptical of the mission of European political integration.  Yet, in both London and extra-London, voting behaviour remains seeded in a loyal party-political tribalism, a strange form of faith.  There is little evidence that voters actually do any evidence-based, rational decision making prior to casting their vote for the habitual party.

The net headline result is that socio-political division is simply spread by ex-Londoners moving into the extra-London world.

These Londoners leave London to contaminate the styx that they privately profess to hate oh-so-much (especially in their preferred mainstream media outlets).  Their choice to willingly overpay the asking prices for housing is a form of colonialism.  In particular, old-style colonialism; while the self-appointed culturally-superior London immigrants will seek to educate the ignorant, non-London riff-raff, whereas the locals will perceive the invaders as hostile, patronising, self-serving and Thornberryesque.

It looks set to become another tributory factor to the civil war to which England is currently headed.  It is inconceivable that the typical Lefty media-luvvie Remainiac is going to understand the basics of human interaction that exist widely outside of the blinkered, people-hating world of Inside the M25.  These ex-Londoners will likely spread their snobbery and divisiveness through their new neighbourhoods, complaining about the smell of the countryside, complaining about the apparent pecking order in the local pub (assuming there is still a local pub), complaining about the lack of car parking space, or the lack of Waitroses (especially outside the South East of England).

They will despair at the lack of Michelin-starred restaurants.  In their socially-inept natural ways, they will attempt joviality about their predicament.  "Oh," they shall gush, "my village in London had two such restaurants within a 10-second Über ride away!  But here, there's only a chippy!  Not even a North Korean vegan takeaway!  How quaint!"  In so doing, they shall fail to recognise the implicit, passive-aggressive insult blatantly obvious to the unfortunate local who foolishly bothered to give the ex-Londoner time of day.  Imagine the enhanced anger of the local when he discovers the "village" to which the ex-Londoner refers is a densely urban area of, say, Chiswick or Islington.

Worst of all will be the complaining about Brexit, demanding second/third/fourth/as-many referenda as it takes to reverse Brexit, to join the Eurozone, to join the Single European Army, to justify ignoring the original referendum decision.  Add to that the wider, local-level consequences of colonialism: the takeover of the local theatre group, demanding a local referendum on how Islam-friendly the local primary school's nativity play should be, applications for planning permission to build a 200ft brick wall around their house ("it's for security!" yeah, they'll certainly need it!), the publicity-seeking connections that get their face into the local papers, the manipulative worming into local social circles perceived to be bastions of local power.  And... wait for it... ultimately, the offering to stand as a candidate in local and national elections.

None of the ex-Londoners will stoop so low as to speak with the locals.  Even fewer will listen, or detect, the subtle passive-aggressiveness rightfully directed at them for being self-centred, self-absorbed and self-serving.  None of them will ever learn the catastrophic social errors embedded deep in their lack-of-character and psyche, so they will continue to practice the despicable snobbery that so-entertained their fellow London Leftie-luvvies at their champagne-socialist soirée dinner parties in Islington.

In all probability, the only "locals" with whom the ex-Londoners might connect would be other immigrants to the local area.  And, from these non-natives, the ex-Londoners will draw satisfying, self-serving, incorrect conclusions about "what the locals think".

In some cases - probably the minority - the ex-London will have chosen to return to the area in which they grew up all those years ago.  They might have left wet behind the ears, but they shall have returned with a sinister metropolitan, anti-English agenda, sneering against the locals who, apparently, have no idea how much money they could make from property, "If only they knew what they were doing."

It's a dangerous cocktail.

Keep eyes peeled on social media.  Look out for an ex-Londoner posting a photograph of a local's dwelling, "Image from #OutsideTheM25".  It's gonna happen.  The signs are there ("Coffee outside the M25 is often unpalateable"; blatant quasi-racism!).  Only a matter of time...

Sunday, 21 October 2018

LBC Radio Sun 21Oct2018: Farage v Adonis

Just had the... erm... opportunity (?) to listen to Nigel Farage ("Far-fetched") and Andrew Adonis ("Adronis") have a staged row on Leading Britain's Conservation.

It was a shining example of the continuing parade of the disingenuous.

Adronis scored a good point about Far-fetched's fragmented messages during the official Leave Campaign, then did the usual Lefty extension smeary trick to characterise the whole Leave Campaign as the fragmentation (as if the Campaign was just another political party, keeping the stupidity of political tribalism going).

Sadly, Far-Fetched didn't have the wit to challenge when and how the official Remain Campaign argued in favour of political integration with Europe.  (That could have been fun: would Adronis have dared to claim (to lie?) about when and how the Remain Campaign extolled the virtues of exterminating meaningful local democracy on strategic policy choices for the "greater good"?  Certainly, the Remain Campaign contaminated the EFTA/EEA "Norway" option by lying, seeking to rule out the one policy choice that would have enabled trade with Europe without political integration.)

Far-fetched, with the assistance of caller Lauren, scored a fatally good point about Adronis' double-standards.

Lauren correctly recalled that the referendum of 1975 was mis-sold to the people as a trading deal, a Common Market.  In 1971, the then government - the Tory government led by Edward Heath - sought no explicit democratic mandate for joining the European Economic Community.  The government kept very quiet the agenda behind the Common Market of continuous political integration.  So, no referendum.  Lauren recalled that those few politicians who recognised the political integrationist agenda were dismissed as the equivalent of conspiracy theorists.

It was the subsequent Labour government that held a referendum in 1975, and the referendum was directed onto the mis-selling scandal of the Common Market as an agreement only about trade (the "Common Market").

So why was Adronis so keen on a second referendum about leaving the European Union when no referendum explicitly took place about joining it?  And why, Far-fetched wondered, did the Labour Party consistently hold no referenda about subsequent European Union treaties (most notably the Lisbon Treaty, the once-called "Constitution of Europe", that the French famously rejected in 2005)?

Adronis blathered, because he could have no straight answer for any of this.  This is indeed the problem with the double-standards that Adronis apparently needs to defend.  Remainiacs, like Leftists, cannot practice what they preach, and simply cannot be consistent even with their own "principles" of the purest, expedient corruption.  Remainiacs' primary objective is a state of unaccountable anti-democracy, an admission to conceal from the voting taxpayer at every cost.

Having waffled his way through the inconsistency of the UK being "a Parliamentary democracy" (more about that later), Adronis ended up claiming the falsehood that the referendum of the 1970s wasn't an exercise in diversion.  This drew blocking interjections from both Far-fetched and caller Lauren.

Adronis was (and is) blatantly wrong.  The 1975 referendum question was:

The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community.
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
Et voilà, emboldened above, the mis-selling scandal.  The wilful and blatant mis-linking of the European Community (the barely-mentioned political integrationist bit) with the Common Market (the trading element that dominated the mainstream media, the propaganda to wash over the masses, the equivalent of 2016's Project Fear).

What was inconsistent about Adronis' drone about "Parliamentary democracy"?  Adronis defended the lack of referendum in 1971 on the basis that a Parliamentary democracy doesn't do referenda.  When asked about 1975, he contradicted himself and then lied about the nature of referendum in the minds of the electorate.  Adronis implied that the electorate made a conscious choice in favour of political integration, that the people weren't lied to in 1975, but were lied to in 2016.  Then Adronis changed tack again, warbling on about a second referendum of 2018/2019 because a referendum of 2016 had already happened.  And, of course, without a single hint of shame, Adronis said of himself that he was "a democrat".  Adronis came across as being far too dim to have realised the repeated own-goals that he had just performed on-air.

Adronis might have recovered some ground if he had spelt out the biggest lie of the Remain Campaign of 2016: the wilful failure to spell out the advantages of unlimited political integration, why the "opts-out" were wrong and how much better life would have been for ordinary taxpaying plebs if unelected technocrats in Brussels would result in better government than a Tory-run shower in Westminster.  But Adronis appeared to have been too dim to have deployed this honest, up-front, respectable, credible line of argument.

It does make one wonder how much cognitive dissonance a Remainiac needs to suffer to find any of Adronis' performance credible.

I find Adronis guilty of double-standards.  Adronis' shameless display is so offensive, it justifiably takes all the scrutiny away from Far-fetched.

Adronis proves that, in general, all Remainiacs still reckon they are immune from being held to account for their systemic deceit.  Remainiacs keep on demanding as many referenda as it takes to integrate-by-stealth into an anti-democratic series of treaties that lock out the taxpaying demos from policy choices, resulting in a state of total taxation without a shred of meaningful representation.

Ergo, with or without the assistance of the Chequers scam - oops sorry, "plan" - the UK is still heading for civil war.

(Later in the show, another caller, Mark, caught Far-fetched out on one of Far-fetched's inconsistencies... the tribalism continues...)

Saturday, 21 July 2018

EC v Google re Android of Jul2018

With as much surprise as bad weather on a British summer bank holiday, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine on 18Jul2018.

Whoopee-do.  Sure, Google has made one major mistake: the demand of its hardware suppliers to sell exclusively Android hardware favourable to Google.  That behaviour is effectively an arrangement of a cartel.  This is the sort of thing that we do indeed pay competition regulators to investigate.

But the rest of the EC's case is nonsense.

At best, this action from the European Commission is arguably a decade late.  As such, this provides yet more evidence to support that the EC's default position of propping up European oligarchs.

As typical, this action from the European Commission yet again obsesses with this idiotic stupidity about choices of internet browsers.  As such, this provides yet more evidence to support that the EC's approaches to law enforcement are highly politicised and largely irrelevant to the interests of the general consumer or general taxpayer.  It adds onto the existing pile of European stupidity about "cookie consent" and, more recently, the General Data Protection Regulation.  It's impossible to access any website without needing to click billions of mouse buttons to get to the content you want.  (and yes, it must be mouse buttons apparently, because the fools in the IT sector think that keyboard accessibility discriminates against the disabled, see this eloquent case against access keys).

At worse, this action from the European Commission yet again underlines the continuous mission of the EU's institutions to hold Europe back, to create diversions from evolving into tomorrow's world, to uphold (or to create) unnecessary obstructions, to protect incumbents by erecting overhead-based barriers to entry into contested sectors.  This ruling is portrayed as a "win" against Google, but in fact it's a "win" against all potential entrants into the areas that the EC think Google has gamed in its favour.

As a consequence of the EC's idiotic, politicised, childish "logic", it is no longer worth the risk entering the smartphone market, because any collaboration that you - as a software promoter - need from a hardware supplier with sufficient critical mass to penetrate the market for consumer devices is apparently de facto illegal.

Perhaps that is sheer stupidity by the EC that we've observed before, and should expect in the future  Or perhaps it's the required outcome, to protect the incumbent oligarchs from "disruptive" technological advances.

Or perhaps it's an expedient way to create a money making machine.  Fine Google for breaching the law, but note that there is no way of magicking away the situation in which Google has allegedly stitched up the market.  So that'll be another fine for another day, then.  And lo, the EC has found a money tree that replaces the original function of UK's membership of the EU.

As if Google needs to care!  To Google, this is probably just a cost of doing business in Europe, and a surprisingly late cost as well.

Taking back control: UKGov impresses EU27 by translating nonsense into EU27 languages... badly

As if UKGov's white paper of 12Jul2018 ("The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union") wasn't embarrassingly issue-illiterate enough (it's not worth reading), UKGov managed to worsen everybody's embarrassment still further.

UKGov managed to screw up the translations of the executive summary into the EU27's official languages.

Facebook, Twitter, mainstream media, everybody are collectively listing speling mistaches, syntax errors, grammatical goofs, transliteration (instead of translation)...

Part of being English is to put up with an incompetent public sector, but even so, there are limits.  This exercise in insulting the audience by screwing up translations looks deliberate.

It's hard to be sure whether UKGov copied-and-pasted stuff into Google Translate - or, worse, Bing Translate - or whether the idiots found a bunch of Toryboys at Eton half-way through a GCSE in whatever random language and a copy of a dictionary dating to the 1850s.

Either way, the intention is crystal clear: be seen to negotiate in good faith, but screw up the implementation so well that the result is bad faith.  The strategy is clear: to undermine the will of the people by hand-delivering the most self-damaging Brexit that the largely-Remainaic civil service can devise.

All because the idiots don't want to accept "freedom of movement" and refuse to read the bit in the EEA Agreement that makes "freedom of movement" a non-issue anyway.

Project Sabotage continues apace.

Sunday, 24 June 2018

2 years on: what’s happened since the Brexit Referendum?

On 23 June 2016, the British voted in favour of leaving the European Union. After an entirely pointless and deliberately disinformative campaign by both sides - featuring Project Fear against Project Fantasy - 51.9% of the voters chose to leave the EU, 48.1% voters chose to remain in the EU.

Where is Brexit today, two years on from the referendum result?


UKGov eventually launched its Article 50 process on 29 March 2017. UKGov accompanied the process with no credible plan for a successful Brexit. Immediately having started the process, UKGov then threw away its initial control of the agenda, arrogantly assuming that running the process was something the EU should do, as if the EU is the private secretary of UKGov. As at 23 June 2018, UKGov still has no plan for a successful Brexit.

Instead of a plan, our dizzyingly incompetent Prime Minister Theresa May received a brainwave on the side of a Welsh mountain. She decided to hold an unnecessary general election on 08 June 2017. The result of the election eliminated the slim majority of her Conservative Party in Parliament, and thus required a Parliamentary confidence-and-supply agreement from hardcore Brextremists of Northern Ireland (the DUP) to prop up UKGov.

The island of Ireland and Northern Ireland is familiar with the “double minority” problem (whereby Unionist Protestants are a minority in the whole island, but Republican Catholics are a minority in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland). As a consequence of May’s unnecessary general election, a government led by the pretend-leaver Prime Minister May needed the support of a hard-Brexit party of Northern Ireland, a province which voted clearly to remain, in order to divide-and-rebalance the ever-lasting splits within May’s own Conservative Party over anything to do with Europe. This is minorities within minorities stuff.

Since the referendum result, UKGov has invested a huge amount of effort in denying the problems that it has inflicted upon itself by choosing to crash out of the Single Market on the same day that UKGov’s membership of the European Union expires on 29 March 2019. UKGov has also gone out of its way to create diversions instead of knuckling down, reading the law up to which its predecessors signed and planning a competent Brexit.

The mainstream media

The mainstream media is just as shit today as it was prior to the referendum. Prior to 1970, to be nearly precise.

A diarrhoea of diabolical diatribes originating from journalists - artists on a deadline - from deep within both Projects Fear and Fantasy spew uncontrollably from every orifice of the mainstream media, in print, in video and in speech. Where there be truths, let us replace them with lies. Where there be relevance, let us replace it with personalities and celebrities. Where there be a competent, empirical impact assessment pertaining to a strategic policy choice, let us replace it with a culturally Marxist panel on Question Time obsessed with identity politics. Not for nothing is the BBC becoming known to some as the Bolshevik Broadcasting Caliphate.

The only useful source of technical detail was then, and still is today, is largely outside the mainstream media. The establishment treats the source as toxin. The source is The only analyst who correctly extrudes the technicalities of the world’s trading system to domestic British politics is petejnorth. It’s a family affair; Richard and Peter North. The whole country’s sole understanding of Brexit depends upon a father-and-son act acting in absolute defiance of the established media and the established political classes. Only one journalist – one! – is issue-literate: Christopher Booker. By contrast, the establishment does whatever it takes to ignore and to silence the bare technical issues that Brexit presents, to the extent of firing the precious few civil servants who do actually have more than half a clue (i.e. Sir Ivan Rogers).

Even Moneyweek gets it wrong, largely because it tends to recycle other hacks’ garbage (especially on customs unions and “customs checks”). Although Moneyweek is broadly pro-Brexit, it learnt the significance of Booker’s contributions very late (in June 2018).

The mainstream media continues its multi-year mission to peddle its fake news, fake analysis, fake facts, fake opinions, gross incompleteness, wilful inaccuracies, void commentaries, non-existent premises, to perform its tribal penis-waving stupidities, to seek out new falsehoods, to boldly go where no hack has dared mislead before.

The UK Government

UKGov is as shit as ever.

Far from merely having no strategy within the EU, it turns out that UKGov has even less of a strategy out with the EU. The strategy to have no strategy (!!) is borne out of delusional ignorance of both Brextremist and Remainiac alike. UKGov has no single, joined-up, coherent thought about it whatsoever.

Neither UKGov nor mainstream media have understood the first basic foundation of Brexit. Brexit is a process, not an event. 43 years spanned UK’s joining and UK’s referendum to leave. Leaving the EU itself is fairly swift, but leaving the regulatory union (a.k.a. the Single Market) is as hard for a member nation as a fly trying to escape from a spider’s web. Actually, it’s harder than that. Imagine a fly trying to escape from a spider’s web whilst playing a game of chess at the same time. That’s why Brexit is a process that shall involve multiple steps over multiple timeframes. And, by analogy, multiple flies dealing with multiple spiders. Welcome to techno-globalist entrapment, a.k.a. “how to convert the rule of law into a prison sentence.”

Never, in the field of human history, have so few owed so much to so many, has the overwhelming moronicity of the few bewildered so many, have the many foolishly entrusted the few to pick the right policy, on the right evidence, for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right timescale.

UKGov’s policy approach - measured by its actual output - is best summarised as:
Part of UKGov (the Brextremist wing) wants an unworkable Brexit: the Legatum Institute’s “Road To Brexit”.
Part of UKGov (the Remainiac wing) rather likes the vassal state plan, because, to them, a vassal state meets Remainiac objectives better than full EU membership could have achieved.
All parts of UKGov pursue the culturally Marxist policy that seeks to maximise Britain’s failure as a nation state.

The Legatum Institute’s “Road To Brexit”

The Legatum Institute’s “Road To Brexit” of October 2016 is designed to fail, because its vision has no useful, proveable connection to the real world. “Road to Brexit” is politically and commercially illiterate.

For example, it proposes “Prosperity Zones”, without really defining them, but which smell like a regulatory union (a.k.a. Single Market) for only English-speaking countries. The “Road to Brexit” was published in Oct 2016, a month in which President-to-be Donald Trump campaigned around America on a popular protectionist platform. The contradiction would have been obvious at the time. Yet, “Road to Brexit” presumes that UK would be some sort of special case to America. Trump himself hinted at such: Britain would be at “the front of the queue”. Trump’s prima facie support inadvertently revealed the naïvety of “Road to Brexit”.

Unsurprisingly, with effect from 01Jul2018, America will have imposed tariffs on imports from European interests. So much for “Prosperity Zones”. If tariffs represent still how America thinks, then the concept of a regulatory union (a.k.a. Single Market) is a non-starter.

For another example, “Road to Brexit” does not consider the probability of pent-up anger still in Australia and New Zealand about Britain’s betrayal of them when UK joined the EEC in 1971.

For a third example, “Road to Brexit” wrongly ignores (or dismisses) the fundamental importance of non-tariff barriers to trade, in spite of the annual report from the US Trade Representative to measure the impact of non-tariff barriers to trade. Simply put, “Road to Brexit” forms no rational base for any Brexit policy or trade policy, unless you sought to design a scorched earth policy.

Could it be that the Brextremists seek to exterminate all UK-EU trade so as to jump into exclusive trading arrangements with America, even on “America-first” terms? This could be a distinct possibility, but at first glance, it is an innumerate strategy. Sure, the EU’s share of world trade is falling. But the rate of the EU’s relative decline – more accurately, non-EU’s relative ascent – is not so severe to justify sacrificing all UK-EU trade within 24 hours of failing to comply with requirements of the regulatory union (a.k.a. Single Market). Even if the cause of the EU’s relative decline in world trade is down to demographics, then there is still time to transition from being a member of the EU to being a third country, using the EEA as a transitional mechanism (for up to, say, 20 years).

For the Legatum Institute, a scorched earth policy could well be the unwritten ulterior motive. Behind the Legatum Institute are venture capitalists. Perhaps “vulture capitalists” would be a better description; venture capitalists make money out of buying distressed assets on the cheap, putting lipstick on the assets, then selling the assets off quickly (within 2 years) at a premium price to the first sucker that will fall for it. That has worked well over the centuries for private companies, to purge a private company of its incompetent management failing to make money in an otherwise functioning market. But a Brexit policy that crashes out of the Single Market results in total, complete, commercial isolation from everything in the world. Everything. This is because, crudely, UKGov has replaced the UK’s old direct trading connections with the world with a growing, single connection to the Single Market. Even a competent UKGov would take up to 10 years to restore the necessary links to make the UK fully “tradable” again. The current incompetent UKGov might never get close to such restoration within 20 years. Thus, it is hard to see how the Legatum’s “vulture capitalist” strategy could work. Thus, it is beyond belief that UKGov could be so willing (in part) to pursue a “Legatum Brexit.”

UKGov remains wilfully issue-illiterate, not just in matters Brexit

Whether influenced by Legatum or not, UKGov still demonstrates a wilful ignorance of the very same European law that UKGovs since 1971 have rubber-stamped onto the UK statute book. Having delegated huge chunks of law-making to the EU since 1971, UKGov has apparently forgotten how to govern. To describe the UKGov as politically-illiterate feels like a grotesque understatement.

There is no evidence that any part of UKGov has read any of the European Commission’s Notices to Stakeholders. These notices spell out the implications of Brexit (in various flavours) on various sectors. UKGov has probably stupidly dismissed the Notices as propaganda.

UKGov still hasn’t grasped the nature of the “regulatory union” that is the Single Market, let alone the implications that leaving the regulatory union has for the UK’s only land border with the EU (the border between Eire and Northern Ireland). Best exemplified by stalemate on the border issue with Northern Ireland, UKGov instead whitters on with all sorts of childishly stupid alternative ideas that fail to identify the issues, let alone solve them.

No-body has tested UKGov’s grasp of matters outside both the EU and the Single Market. For the most part, the mainstream media has whittered on about customs unions, as if any hack knows what a customs union is, or how customs unions differ from regulatory unions.

To take only one industrial sector out of many, such is the ignorance and complacency of UKGov – and the cowardly quietness of business interests – that no-body in UKGov has bothered to ask whether there is any insurer out there willing to insure an uninsurable air flight. Uninsurable air flight? Yes: in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit, aeroplanes physically present in the UK would be grounded with effect from 23:00 UTC 29 March 2019, until such time, crudely, as the European Aviation Safety Agency would be satisfied that UK can actually manage airspace under an enforceable regime (there’s more to it than that, but you get the jist).

The above legislative reality about aeroplanes appears to prompt leave-voting ordinary plebs to cry, “How did we survive without the EU?” It’s a good question, but a misguided one. We survived prior to the EU because the world’s trading system worked very differently then than now. Prior to the EU, the role of regulation was to prohibit activities within a permissive environment. Within the EU, it’s the other way around: regulation permits a narrow range of activities, but at extraordinary depth through the supply chain, within a prohibitive environment. The EU’s influence and adoption of international standards provide a de facto regulatory platform for global governance – a single, authoritarian, communist world government is the key aim of the cultural Marxist – so the trading world of 2019 is totally, utterly, comprehensively different from that of, say, 1945. There might be a way back from technocracy to liberalism, but it will be a long, hard fight. Until then, UKGov should play the trade game rather than deny the existence of the trade game. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Wither Brexit?

It can be hard to see clearly who seeks to damage Britain the most.

Remainaics continue to fight the referendum, nearly two years after they lost the vote, adamant that democracy isn’t the right way to decide matters in a democracy, because some matters are apparently soooooo important that the masses cannot be trusted to get anything right.

Brextremists are hell-bent on yanking the UK out of the global trading system suddenly at 11pm on 29 March 2019, marching the UK over a cliff edge in a hare-brained attempt to enter a mirage of paradise hovering over an open volcano. (That, at least, is the sketch that emerges from Legatum’s “Road to Brexit”).

There's no evidence that UKGov are deliberately playing dumb just to annoy the EU.  If that were the case, UKGov wouldn't be annoying non-EU entities at the same time.  It just feels like the whole of the UKGov has its whole institutional head buried up its own institutional arse.

The correct Brexit policy – as set out by the Flexcit Plan – is the last such plan that any agent of UKGov wants to know. Flexcit achieves the people’s aims. Such achievement disqualifies Flexcit from consideration of the elite’s aims.

The civil service don’t want Brexit: they are already paid handsomely for doing very little, so the prospect of actually having to do some useful work for their salary is de facto unappealing. As is now apparent, very few civil servants actually understand the basics of policy choice anyway (e.g. Brexit, NHS, education, defence… the Home Office, oh deary me, the Home Office).

So the scene is set for a largely Remainiac UKGov to betray the vote to leave, either revoking the leaving process, or delivering bankruptcy as part of Brexit. England thus looks set to start its inexorable journey towards civil war.

Ergo, UKGov is as shit as ever. Q.E.D.

The EU

With UKGov dissolving itself in a bath of pure stupidity, it’s pitiful to see Michel Barnier at the “negotiating” table with no-body his worth talking to. Or even talking at. The only quote that seems fit for purpose was the line uttered by one of the German guests who had the misfortune of staying at Fawlty Towers: “However did they win?”

That notwithstanding, at one level, the EU doesn’t need to do much about Brexit, because it doesn’t really have the right to do anything. Yes, it can sequence negotiations, and it does a great job of sequencing anything to self-destruction (just ask Yanis Varoufakis). But for Brexit, such effort was clearly wasted on UKGov. The EU could have sequenced a perfect set-up for a UK own goal, and still our dizzyingly incompetent Prime Minister would have called a general election instead of swotting up on the acquis communautaire. I wonder if there is a European standard for headbutting concrete walls?

But, for all of that pious, pompous, prattling, patronising, piffling pity, the EU is still as shit as ever.

The EU’s own future

The EU’s future relationship with the UK is probably of less significance to the EU than the EU’s own short-term survival as a political going-concern. There are lots of self-inflicted problems for the EU to neutralise. Here’s a small sample.
The economic suicide pill that is the Eurozone, which created a massive trade surplus for Germany at the expense of every other member of the Eurozone.
This combined with local financial mismanagement – and a collusive deceit between a government and its bankers! – to result in the sovereign debt crisis in Greece 2009-2016, which in turn required German taxpayers to prop up the Greek state and, by proxy, the Eurozone.
The EU’s share of global trade appears to be falling (most likely a consequence of an aging endogenous population, hence the “need” to import lots of non-Europeans to fund tomorrow’s pension payments).
More recently, the Italian election of 04 March 2018 resulted in the Italian President exercising his constitutional right to veto a proposed non-conformist minister of finance, but did so on grounds that looked unlikely to meet the conditions for such power set out in the constitution. The whiff of the EU meddling in a member state’s democratic affairs - this time via its puppet, the Italian President - is unmistakable.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the EU’s recent policy choices have started to bite. All of a sudden, ordinary plebs are beginning to wonder where some of this legislation came from.

General Data Protection Legislation

The General Protection Data Regulation provides a timely reminder why EU law is as bad as any national law. On 25 May 2018, GDPR came into force. It is a regulation, not a directive, so comprehensively by-passes any direct mechanism for democratic scrutiny or approval. Yet, its antediluvian, ideological rhetoric about “data protection” has created a definition of “personal data” that is so open-ended, that even the most basic and fundamental of data processing is within its scope. This includes a small company whose sole use of personal data is to employ people. Or a family that wants to collate its family tree to include living relatives. Yet, GDPR assumes everybody – everybody! – is a Facebook, slurping up data and spraying it all over the place to make money.

Thus, all over the EEA (not just the EU), employers – especially those in common law jurisdictions that need to prove their innocence well in advance of any data inspector knocking on the door – are having to spell out to their employees the rights that GDPR gives them… including the right for erasure… which would amount to a breach of the employment contract when the employer can longer pay the employee… which, of course, would be the employer’s fault under employment law within most of the EU. Duh.

GDPR reveals a typical, disjointed, idiotic, quarter-baked product of classic European techno-groupthink.

The ulterior motive of EU groupthink that led to GDPR is almost certainly the same EU groupthink that resulted in Key Information Documents: collusive, lobbyist, feudal protectionism. By creating an obligation that consumes overhead resources, the EU effectively creates both technical and financial barriers to entry into, and within, the Single Market (yes: within. The regulatory union protects incumbents from all entrants, whether from within the EEA or out with the EEA, hence why big business likes the Single Market).

And more is to come. Unnoticed by our shit mainstream media (except for the incredible witness of the FT, which appears to have recently, but only briefly, awoken), the next self-inflicted threat to Europe’s economic future is the ePrivacy Regulation.

The ePrivacy Regulation

This act of regulatory stupidity wilfully throttles new methods, new technologies and new processes to protect incumbent economic operators, to hell with our childrens’ future as a consequence of protecting the undeserving and the obsolete.

It does this in two ways: i) by extending obsolete regulation that applies to old telephony technologies onto any entity that offers voice-over-internet (telephone-like) functionality to anybody else; and ii) applying GDPR to the “personal” data of legal artificial persons (e.g. a company). This latter point means that a corporate vehicle used to, say, launder money for the benefit of a European technocrat can exercise its “right to be forgotten” fully in compliance with the law, irrespective of any criminal conviction that it might end up with.

The “level playing field” appears to require artificial costs be imposed on any operation that wisely avoids the expensive infrastructure of legacy technologies. It amounts to a hard socialist equality-of-outcome that preserves the existing elite at the expense of the future.
And even more is to come.

The Copyright Directive

As if the combined effect of GDPR and the ePrivacy Regulation wasn’t enough, there is the Copyright Directive.

This is yet another instance of the EU adopting international standards without due regard for all of the consequences of implementation.

Predictably, the winning lobbyists where those with the deepest pockets, who can afford to provide "later-career opportunities", in this case the copyright mafia.

The copyright mafia has a long, long history of wanting to charge you for even the mere peek of something protected by copyright.  Remember the battle over whether you were entitled to transfer your LPs onto cassettes so that you could play music in your car?  The dream of all copyright agencies is to charge you when passing an advert mounted on a billboard at the roadside for the enjoyment you must have had when you saw the artist creativity that went into the advert, as it zipped through your peripheral vision at 70mph.  This "dream" remains the holy grail of the copyright mafia and their parasitic lawyers.  So what if people feel the need to gouge their own eyes out to avoid paying copyright fees for seeing adverts?  The copyright mafia will then urge their clients to produce audio adverts instead...

The copyright mafia and cultural Marxists should have nothing in common, but the communism that cultural Marxists seek to impose worldwide is a gravy train that the copyright mafia is more than happy to ride.

The original copyright directive of 2001 was bad enough, but in June 2018, the European Parliament started the approval process of additions to the directive to impose obligations on social media providers to pay royalties based on the use of “copyrighted” material by the provider’s users.

It would typically require social media providers to censor their users on behalf of the copyright industry and, by implication, the state. The social media provider ends up doing the work of the copyright industry for the copyright industry.

The economic impact is the same old protectionist thing that forms the basis of the EEA.  Only existing media providers (social media and traditional media alike), with vast wealth, will be able to afford the dead-weight administrative burden to comply with the updated Copyright Directive.  This ensures, as usual, that entrants in the EEA's digital market have massive overheads to fund before they start to trade, which, in turn, prevents entrants into the market.  The law, once again, shall protect incumbents from competition.  Hence why Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc probably won't grumble much: to be protected from competition is probably a net profit after the cost of doing the work of the copyright mafia.

The net result is that the Copyright Directive looks set to become the most extraordinary combination of extortion (a “hyperlink tax”), protection-of-corruption, state-sponsored oligopoly and ideological stupidity.

Media comment is rife, here are a few examples (BitTech, Wired, the Verge).

The Single European Army

The spectre of the European Army approaches.

The Centre of European Reform put together an elegant-sounding case to explain why experience to date teaches all EU members not to waste time playing with the concept of a European Army, but the case is politically-illiterate. The Eurozone had no economic sense whatsoever, but it still happened, because the ideological, Leftist, globalist, cultural Marxists who demanded it got it. Likewise, these are the same people calling for the Single European Army. They will use the same technical bases of bamboozlement and deceit to get their way. That process took a step forward in Nov2017 and the legal framework was adopted at the European Council in Dec2017.

Cunning and sinister.

But at least the EU wants the UK to leave

The EU has at least had the wit to realise that UKGov is certainly not a viable member of its club.

Fleecing the UK for 43 years – having UK taxpaying plebs bail out wilfully inefficient French and German farmers – was nice while it lasted, but, actually, the sheer stress involved in managing UKGov was probably the greater cost to all concerned.

Memories of how the UK agonised over the Maastricht Treaty are probably still raw, so it’s feasible that some operators in the EU consider the UK’s departure to be a “lucky escape”.

Thus, the EU probably will accept commercial losses arising from UK crashing out of the Single Market, irrespective of what European commercial interests actually want. In the immediate-term, the protectionist barriers to entry of the regulatory union (a.k.a. The Single Market) will their job, and hold British exports to EU members at bay.

We can see evidence of this train of thought: the EU has written to the World Trade Organisation to announce the UK’s intention to join the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement, as reported by Monckton Chambers (well, the shit mainstream media wouldn’t report it, would it?).

All of which makes Michel Barnier’s comment about the EU accepting an application by the UK to re-join EFTA a remarkably generous comment. I wonder whether Barnier still believes it. Hmm. I wonder whether EFTA hopes that the UK has forgotten it!

The Outside World

Any government outside the EU must be licking its lips at the prospect of “negotiating” with UKGov! Anything that stupid is definitely worth talking to, because, frankly, by 30 March 2019, the UK will sign anything - literally anything! - that will re-stock UK supermarket shelves.

And that is the least of UKGov’s challenges outside the EU. Without the comfort blanket of the EU, from within which member nations can deny the real issues of the world, UKGov will have little choice but to develop coherent policies to the following sample headline issues. I look forward to the day when UKGov takes these issues seriously.
The ageing of western populations.
The sudden ageing of China’s population.
“Peak human population” (Hans Rosling, even Deutsch Bank is forecasting a decline in world population by 2100 as reported by CNBC. UN has said otherwise, as reported by Wikipedia, but might be waking up after all.
The contamination of the United Nations by pseudo-science, especially regarding population growth (too Malthusian to be credible) and “man-made global warming” (wholly unsupported by the correctly-measured and correctly-presented facts).

All of these issues are pervasive. They have been true for decades, and shall remain true for decades to come. Yet, the regionalist technocratic experiment of the European Union has only worsened Europe’s ability to respond to these mega-trends, primarily by entrenching Leftist fakery and denial into policy choices and legislative processes, providing national governments a plausible excuse for inactivity/procrastination/sabotage, and providing corporations a profitable lobbying opportunity. Regionalism is ripe only for eradication, not a success to expand into a global techno-socialist cartel. You don’t feed cancer, you kill it. The solution is – and has always been – local solutions to local issues. Local joined-up government, ideally with the express consent of the governed. This solution is the best self-regulating solution there is.

Yet, two years on, and few people in the British establishment have understood the wider issues at stake.