There is, for a lot of places in the west (which I accept is a very general description of one portion of our current civilisation) there is a problem -- or at least a concern -- with people from the muslim faith. It isn't so much what they do in the lands where their religion is dominant as another car bomb outside a rival mosque rarely makes the headlines several thousand miles away, but more what they do when they come to the west. You don't need me to remind you of numerous assaults, outrages and downright lunatic mayhem which has been committed in Europe and North America and other 'western' nations by people of that particular mindset (and yes, before you ask, religion has to be a mindset or its abstract precepts can have no impact on the human mind and therefore can have no power to guide human actions. The thought precedes the act.)
The question that the west has been reluctant to ask itself, other than individuals, is why so many muslims want to leave their own nations? Not all of them are fleeing from war -- a war that many consider may have been facilitated by the west poking its nose and arms into places it shouldn't be but was started and continued almost entirely by muslim tribes and various sects of islam who don't get along but all have AK-47s. For a so-called Religion of Peace there seems to be considerable evidence many of its adherents don't see it that way at all.
Now it is easy to say that these people want a better life, though it would be a question of what the west has that offers a better life. My view is moving from a warm place to a cold, often wet place where there is very little of the religious and social constructs that sustained those people in their homelands and where there are increasingly fewer jobs to earn money to improve one's life, is not necessarily better. To make it even more unappealing, the languages and cultures and traditions would definitely be alien to non-westerners. In other words, you wouldn't go unless there was something appealing on offer you couldn't get at home.
It has been said that immigration without assimilation is invasion, and a good number of ordinary people (not the western politicians and assorted media hacks who are paid well enough to live in secure places until the may be obliged to flee their home country) think what we are seeing now is invasion. There isn't a whole lot of assimilation going on, as these refugees inevitably decline to be part of the nation where they they arrive. When you see, as I have, men in white, long desert-like robes and open-toe (and sockless) sandals walking round on a not particularly warm British day, you wonder why the insistence of being 'arab' is more attractive than being warm and dry. But then, if you want to make a statement you are separate then, sure, it works pretty well.
Most of the refugees who passed through economically stable and war-free countries to reach Germany (and possibly other European nations) are mostly MMAs -- Men of Military Age (there are not many women accompanying them though western media has worked hard to show images of every baby brought along) -- and are thus economic migrants. They passed through safe places, even ones that have the same culture and religion that they know, because it wasn't lucrative enough. The better life they want depends more not on opportunities to work but on the state hand outs and 'free money' they know the west has on offer. They want what we have, and they would like it free, please.
Rightly or wrongly, the driving force of politics and social-engineering in the west has been to provide and maintain a safety net for those who, through ill-fortune or plain mismanagement of their own lives, have fallen through the cracks of an economically stable society. The idea was that if you arrest such a fall, people (with help or on their own initiative) can begin to find their own feet following the fall and in time no longer require state assistance. A temporary lapse or spell of bad luck can be put behind the citizen who aspires to a more promising, less dependent life. Laudable of course, but we have seen through several decades of this ideal -- and one that cannot be shifted from the political map no matter what the cost or consequences -- is that all that happens is the safety net quickly becomes a warm, cosy hammock. No need to lift oneself up when you are provided with everything you need without working for it.
Indeed, there is some evidence to show that families in this warm, soft hammock our nation has provided can enjoy a level of wealth that working people cannot hope to attain. When some prominent 'activist' said a few years ago that families on the dole (or whatever phrase is currently fashionable) should have a minimum annual income of £35,000 provided by the state, it made a lot of working people grimace. No matter how hard a lot of people in employment work, they cannot hope to bring in £35,000 after tax with all the attendant costs of transport and not being able to wear pyjamas all day.
The question then is why should people who don't work enjoy a significantly better lifestyle than those who don't? There has been no answer forthcoming, but the idea of more money for the non-working is still 'out there.' When ideas get 'out there' they tend to be a precursor to being 'in here.'
Perhaps none of the people we have elected to government have any idea this immivasion is happening. Perhaps the people of our nations are a complete mystery to them. So we have a situation that our politicians, who we elect in the hope they honour their promises and equally are able to see current trends and patterns also have an ability to be aware of future issues, cannot do what they say they can. For example, the non-politician in me is so unsophisticated that if I fill my fridge with cartons of milk it not only costs me a lot of money I needn't pay, the fridge soon becomes full (denying space for other things I need to refrigerate) and the milk I can never get round to using slowly goes off. So far our politicians, if they are aware of anything like this as regards immigration, have a vague idea that 'we' (as if we are one with them) must buy a larger fridge. It hasn't occurred to them, apparently, that buying more and more milk and stuffing it in is not the way to go.
I am sure there are some who would be outraged that I appear to be equating people who 'want a better life' are milk cartons. That isn't the point of analogies. We have a small island with limited living space and if you believe what the social observers say, a shortage of housing but an increasing strain on education and health provision.
The question in any kitchen must be where do you put a larger fridge?
I have a relative, by marriage, who is very keen on this immivasion and sees no problem in more people coming here to do little but to maintain their stance that they are different. This relative even sends out messages suggesting if it wasn't for these people, Britain would have fewer brain surgeons and heart specialists. The trouble would appear to be that the brain surgeons and heart specialists who arrive from the middle-east, say, come in by plane direct to Heathrow and not by train and foot into Germany or get into the back of lorries at Calais. But like our politicians, my relative doesn't seem to have an ability to see what is happening though this person lives in a comfortable part of London where reality can seem a long way off. Certainly when I lived in one industrial northern town, the immivasion lot if they had any job at all was as taxi-drivers, or mostly lived off the state safety net in their own non-assimilated hammocks and among them had a good number of men who regarded the people already there as either sexual playthings (if young enough) or worthy of disapproval.
To go back to the MMA immivasion breaking on Germany and threatening other western nations, a lot of these young men want -- as young men will -- sex. If their officially-approved hijab-clad females aren't coming with them then they will have to turn, when the urge takes them, to what is available locally.
My conclusion is that the west's leaders are wilfully blind, or ignorant of consequences, and all we are doing is planning for larger fridges because we don't know or want to know anything about things of ours that are turning sour.
Monday 10 October 2016
Saturday 8 October 2016
A Game of Games
Back when I was doing some teaching on computers, if I asked the 'students' (they never really studied as such, but we had to call them that) what they wanted to be when they finished college, almost all of them said they wanted to be games designers.
They also thought they would immediately be paid £30,000 as year minimum in such a job and didn't have to turn up at work every day. Perhaps they were right: maybe office work had changed since I had done it.
I was somewhat neutral about their aims as I didn't really play many games, despite the fact that I had some spare time in my part-time teaching work. Frankly I regarded games as largely 'electronic mazes' where going left, left, right, left, jump, pick up the magic sword/gun/crystal jump again and go right one more time would give you untold pixel wealth. But, each to their own: they might not be for me but there was clearly a market for this even if most games fall into a few limited categories.
But I also have to admit that since those conversations five years ago computer/console/mobile gaming has grown even larger than it loomed then. Given that these students were one cold, wet evening queueing up at the door 15 minutes before going home time eager to get out and spend their EMA (the then Educational Maintenance Allowance, intended to help them pay for transport to college, buy academic materials, etc) on the latest incarnation of Call of Duty then it was clear this was important to them.
So for all I know these intrepid games-players are now even more intrepid games-designers, responsible for animating some pink gorilla in a tree opening fire on some alien-spaceship to stop them stealing the life crystals we all need to survive. Who knows? I must however wish them luck if only because since they graduated to seek this well-paid employment many colleges around the country will be pumping out yet more kids eager to take the same programming job for perhaps a little less than 30 grand a year.
Now, I have to admit that while I do certain things in my retirement I do have some spare time and have started to look at games more closely. Back when my sons were little the games on things like the Spectrum were nothing more than lumps of pixels going left, right, right, etc. Then came the Atari and so on, and the standards of graphics improved though to me they lacked the cut and thrust of a true game like chess. Or even Monopoly, for that matter. But the standards were on the up, and lately I have looked at a couple of games that have stunning, almost real world graphics and reasonably engaging play.
But of the games I have dabbled with of late, time permitting, the elements that can destroy and be destroyed might inwardly involve human beings but you never see them. These computer tanks, warships and spaceships all have people on board (or they could be remotely controlled for all I know) but no matter what the destruction I never hear the screams of the wounded and the crying of those close to death. In effect, inanimate objects are reduced to twisted metal but no humans actually die, and nor do you get to see any semblance of a human in most of them. Certainly you do not see them writhe in agony the way war sometimes tends to make them.
My philosophy, and I had never thought of a 'philosophy of games' until recently, is more that objects can be ruined, but not people. I have therefore no interest in a shoot-em-up where your are led to believe you are targeting and killing humans, no matter how many pixels they are made from.
But this leads me to another point. I saw this game ad on twitter today and it disturbed me.
They also thought they would immediately be paid £30,000 as year minimum in such a job and didn't have to turn up at work every day. Perhaps they were right: maybe office work had changed since I had done it.
I was somewhat neutral about their aims as I didn't really play many games, despite the fact that I had some spare time in my part-time teaching work. Frankly I regarded games as largely 'electronic mazes' where going left, left, right, left, jump, pick up the magic sword/gun/crystal jump again and go right one more time would give you untold pixel wealth. But, each to their own: they might not be for me but there was clearly a market for this even if most games fall into a few limited categories.
But I also have to admit that since those conversations five years ago computer/console/mobile gaming has grown even larger than it loomed then. Given that these students were one cold, wet evening queueing up at the door 15 minutes before going home time eager to get out and spend their EMA (the then Educational Maintenance Allowance, intended to help them pay for transport to college, buy academic materials, etc) on the latest incarnation of Call of Duty then it was clear this was important to them.
So for all I know these intrepid games-players are now even more intrepid games-designers, responsible for animating some pink gorilla in a tree opening fire on some alien-spaceship to stop them stealing the life crystals we all need to survive. Who knows? I must however wish them luck if only because since they graduated to seek this well-paid employment many colleges around the country will be pumping out yet more kids eager to take the same programming job for perhaps a little less than 30 grand a year.
Now, I have to admit that while I do certain things in my retirement I do have some spare time and have started to look at games more closely. Back when my sons were little the games on things like the Spectrum were nothing more than lumps of pixels going left, right, right, etc. Then came the Atari and so on, and the standards of graphics improved though to me they lacked the cut and thrust of a true game like chess. Or even Monopoly, for that matter. But the standards were on the up, and lately I have looked at a couple of games that have stunning, almost real world graphics and reasonably engaging play.
But of the games I have dabbled with of late, time permitting, the elements that can destroy and be destroyed might inwardly involve human beings but you never see them. These computer tanks, warships and spaceships all have people on board (or they could be remotely controlled for all I know) but no matter what the destruction I never hear the screams of the wounded and the crying of those close to death. In effect, inanimate objects are reduced to twisted metal but no humans actually die, and nor do you get to see any semblance of a human in most of them. Certainly you do not see them writhe in agony the way war sometimes tends to make them.
My philosophy, and I had never thought of a 'philosophy of games' until recently, is more that objects can be ruined, but not people. I have therefore no interest in a shoot-em-up where your are led to believe you are targeting and killing humans, no matter how many pixels they are made from.
But this leads me to another point. I saw this game ad on twitter today and it disturbed me.
Being disturbed is probably nothing new in life, but this one got to me for two reasons.
First, as I am currently reading a book by Barbara Tuchman (The Guns Of August) about the origins of World War One, this ad jarred with me. I find Tuchman's book well written, engaging and an eye-opener how the nations of Europe stumbled into a terrible conflict despite many misgivings and anxieties and doubts. It was as if the 1906 Schlieffen plan for Germany to invade France through Belgium was, once it was made known, became a prophecy that had to be fulfilled. I have also read Max Hastings on WW1 and other history books too of the time. I really feel it isn't a subject that could bear much fantasy, but one assumes that as games are fantasy and why not fantasise about trenches, mud and barbed wire? I wonder if the poppies put in an appearance?
Second, what got me most about this was the character with the Mauser pistol. The image of a cool black man in British khaki (as opposed to field grey, which the Germans who had Mauser pistols wore) with fashionably upturned collar and without a helmet somewhat made me think that this was more the image of a street thug. I doubt if the image is the typical British army officer at say, the Marne.
This is not to say that black people weren't in the war. The French had troops from North Africa, we Brits had Indian troops. There may even have been soldiers from the Caribbean fighting for the British Expeditionary Force. But it wasn't what this picture shows.
This for me is the worst side of the modern games business. War here is seen as movie-styled urban street-fighting (though undoubtedly it was at times) and reduced to acts of individualism and gung-ho 'you-never-have-to-reload' adventurism. Games, I accept, have become like the movies are: an extension of today's cultural preferences and practices forced on to a sketchy view of reality. So why not have a black man in casual attire, armed as street thug might be (or for those who are driven by BLM, as a cop would be) and calmly picking off 'the enemy' with unfailing accuracy? Cool, bro. Know what I'm sayin'?
I shouldn't be surprised. We casually think that putting modern actors and trendy styles in period costume and the actors behaving in currently acceptable, thoroughly modern ways (oh wow, the rich in Downton Abbey caring about their servants so much they gave them time off, supported them emotionally, attended lower-class weddings, wept with them at their funerals and so on) is the stuff of history. Yes, it is drama and it may always have been so from Greek times onwards with actors wearing what they did in everyday life, but war deserves to be treated with a certain respect and accuracy. Not just because we don't want to see it happen again but because of the people who died in those wars, many horribly, many in lonely terror, deserve a proper regard and respect.
Perhaps I shouldn't imagine that computer games, crafted for the unknowing and fawned over by the ignorant, should be any different. But, really... Know what I'm sayin', bro?
Wednesday 5 October 2016
Back and Leaving
It is a long time since I wrote anything for this blog. Not because I don't have anything to say but because there is too much to say.
Like most people who care about what is happening around us I am full of thoughts about what is happening to the west, and the elements that are seeking its decline and even collapse -- and my thoughts are anything but kind towards towards those people and systems and ideologies and cults who are working so tirelessly (and so misguidedly) towards our end. But there are so many aspects to it all that there is neither the time to cover them all nor perhaps any point.
For reasons that any sane person cannot fathom, those elements that want to see everything we have built and nurtured being replaced by something corrupt, unworkable and unworthy are having their way. Common sense was probably always in short supply, but it does not even make a showing any more. A succession of bizarre demands have replaced any semblance of normality.
Take, as an example, the Brexit vote. The question, in pretty plain language in June of 2016, was put to the people of these islands. A simple choice on membership of the European Union was offered to those eligible to vote by the terms of our laws and the majority of those voting could see it clearly. Does this seem obvious? Well, you can look at a referendum like the one in Australia a few years ago that was a pitch for independence, such as to stop having our monarch as their head of state. But it was apparently so confusing that few people could work out what they were actually voting for, or so one Australian told me. I wasn't involved, so I can't say as a fact, but that was the view of someone living -- and voting -- in Sydney. Mind you, this person voted to leave Britain's 'control' so was disappointed the outcome wasn't going the way they wanted, and perhaps we have to accept that whatever was asked the majority were in favour of staying with the UK.
My point is the question has to be clear, and then people can be in no doubt.
It is of course entirely possible that despite the welter of political and media pressure to tell us all to remain in the EU, the vote to leave was done for a variety of reasons. these however weren't itemised on the referendum. Speculation may abound what a lot of people wanted, or feared, but in any event the question was yes or no, in or out, or more accurately leave or stay?
I had reason for my vote, which I will state at the end of this blog.*
The majority was as we now know in favour of leaving. I was one of them. True as of yet the actual process of departing a failing and corrupt organisation that has wrought so much havoc on the nations of Europe (which incidentally we are still very much connected to by common culture and aims) hasn't started, but an answer was clearly given.
Now I do not put much faith in democracy as such: making a choice once every five years for a local parliamentary representative does not have any influence on a government, and even less on what they do thereafter while in power. If I want Joe Bloggs to represent me in parliament and Joe Bloggs wants to affiliate with a political doctrine and the party of that doctrine gains a majority of seats and accepts the offer by the monarch to form a government (and they can refuse, unlikely thought that may be) I can have no say in that process or what this collection of people do once their chosen head person has moved his or her sofa into Number 10.
My democratic moment lasted two seconds while I made an X on a piece of paper. I certainly was not voting for peace, a prime minister, a relaxation of border controls, the building of nuclear power plants or even the new colour of the wallpaper in Downing Street. I voted to relinquish any such say when I slipped the folded paper into the ballot box, trusting only that someone would add the votes up properly -- and that is a whole separate issue these days.
So the June vote came out for leaving the EU. Not by a landslide, but a sufficiently large margin to leave no doubt that this was what the majority wanted. Fifty-two per cent to 48 constitutes enough of a win to make the job of a recount pointless.
At once however the enemies of Britain, by which I mean people who live in these islands but cling to all sorts of weird ideas and ways that run counter to the welfare of this nation, began whining and moaning. The Remainers rapidly became the Remoaners, saying it just wasn't fair, that the people who wanted us all to Leave were old and stupid and racist and had no vision of the security and prospects that open borders and increasing legislation from foreign interests would bring to our islands. There were predictions of doom and economic collapse, that war would break out in Europe, Fears that innocent Poles and Romanians would be rounded up and shipped home in containers. There were calls for a second referendum, with among many reasons cited being that the vote for a change in the status quo should be something like at least 75 per cent of the electorate. So to Leave it had to be a clear 50 per cent of the people wanting out. Anyone not voting of course would be assumed as wanting to stay, rather than perhaps not caring either way.
There was talk that London, which voted in favour of staying put, had been cruelly ignored by the rest of the country. Let down, even. It was argued that the uneducated bumpkins, peasants and crass northerners had ruined it for Londoners, who of course were the only ones empowered by their exalted location to see what was good and pure and lovely. There were Remainers who argued, on state television (which naturally is centred in London and handy for the Channel Tunnel) were being denied unrestricted, no-visa travel to Europe.
One woman who voted to stay even said to me that the most important aspect of all of this was being able to have holidays in France without the inconvenience of having a passport checked.
Well, each to their own. Given the events recently in Paris and other towns and cities of France I am not sure I am all that keen on going there myself, but we each have our views of what constitutes local bother and what is terrorism bordering on armed insurrection.
We are told that the process of leaving the EU will begin in 2017, and while that seems disappointing to the Leavers like me at least it is promised to happen. In the meantime we continue to operate EU laws, follow their court rulings, pay our fees and any fines imposed, and accept for now we don't have much say in our state of being. We are after all considered a region of Europe and not a nation and generally no one expects a region to have their own ideas and separate needs.
No matter, this is immaterial to the Remoaners, who haven't finished even though the referendum is done. Indeed the recent long drawn out leadership election farce of the Labour party was peppered with loud claims that if Labour's new leader was this bloke or the other chap then we would indeed vote again on this issue, that we would ignore any vote to Leave, that we would immerse ourselves even more in Europe to the point of throwing out Sterling in favour of the Euro.
I would imagine then that unrestricted travel to French holiday resorts would be even easier with the Euro as the only currency. Yes, it makes sense. To some.
*My reason for voting Leave was a matter of laws. I simply want us to make our own laws, governed by the issues affecting this country, rather than meekly adopting perhaps unrealistic laws imposed by Belgians and the like who have no concern about the nations of these islands. It wasn't racism, it wasn't denying access, it wasn't fearing Johnny -- or Ahmed -- Foreigner on our shores. It was the simple desire of having a parliament of our own people on our lands which has to consider what we need to grow and thrive.
When I make a mark in an election, my only concern is that the person I am voting for ably represents me and my family in parliament with the added bonus that he or she will argue for or against laws affecting me and mine. Selfish some may say, but there we are. In the end the only thing that counts is who we are and what we have and what we want to build. Letting some one else make those choices for us without caring is, frankly, bizarre.
(Oh, and in case you're wondering, I don't rate the EU parliament at all as they seem to have very little say in what the unelected Belgian civil servants and various grubby self-interest groups want.)
Like most people who care about what is happening around us I am full of thoughts about what is happening to the west, and the elements that are seeking its decline and even collapse -- and my thoughts are anything but kind towards towards those people and systems and ideologies and cults who are working so tirelessly (and so misguidedly) towards our end. But there are so many aspects to it all that there is neither the time to cover them all nor perhaps any point.
For reasons that any sane person cannot fathom, those elements that want to see everything we have built and nurtured being replaced by something corrupt, unworkable and unworthy are having their way. Common sense was probably always in short supply, but it does not even make a showing any more. A succession of bizarre demands have replaced any semblance of normality.
Take, as an example, the Brexit vote. The question, in pretty plain language in June of 2016, was put to the people of these islands. A simple choice on membership of the European Union was offered to those eligible to vote by the terms of our laws and the majority of those voting could see it clearly. Does this seem obvious? Well, you can look at a referendum like the one in Australia a few years ago that was a pitch for independence, such as to stop having our monarch as their head of state. But it was apparently so confusing that few people could work out what they were actually voting for, or so one Australian told me. I wasn't involved, so I can't say as a fact, but that was the view of someone living -- and voting -- in Sydney. Mind you, this person voted to leave Britain's 'control' so was disappointed the outcome wasn't going the way they wanted, and perhaps we have to accept that whatever was asked the majority were in favour of staying with the UK.
My point is the question has to be clear, and then people can be in no doubt.
It is of course entirely possible that despite the welter of political and media pressure to tell us all to remain in the EU, the vote to leave was done for a variety of reasons. these however weren't itemised on the referendum. Speculation may abound what a lot of people wanted, or feared, but in any event the question was yes or no, in or out, or more accurately leave or stay?
I had reason for my vote, which I will state at the end of this blog.*
The majority was as we now know in favour of leaving. I was one of them. True as of yet the actual process of departing a failing and corrupt organisation that has wrought so much havoc on the nations of Europe (which incidentally we are still very much connected to by common culture and aims) hasn't started, but an answer was clearly given.
Now I do not put much faith in democracy as such: making a choice once every five years for a local parliamentary representative does not have any influence on a government, and even less on what they do thereafter while in power. If I want Joe Bloggs to represent me in parliament and Joe Bloggs wants to affiliate with a political doctrine and the party of that doctrine gains a majority of seats and accepts the offer by the monarch to form a government (and they can refuse, unlikely thought that may be) I can have no say in that process or what this collection of people do once their chosen head person has moved his or her sofa into Number 10.
My democratic moment lasted two seconds while I made an X on a piece of paper. I certainly was not voting for peace, a prime minister, a relaxation of border controls, the building of nuclear power plants or even the new colour of the wallpaper in Downing Street. I voted to relinquish any such say when I slipped the folded paper into the ballot box, trusting only that someone would add the votes up properly -- and that is a whole separate issue these days.
So the June vote came out for leaving the EU. Not by a landslide, but a sufficiently large margin to leave no doubt that this was what the majority wanted. Fifty-two per cent to 48 constitutes enough of a win to make the job of a recount pointless.
At once however the enemies of Britain, by which I mean people who live in these islands but cling to all sorts of weird ideas and ways that run counter to the welfare of this nation, began whining and moaning. The Remainers rapidly became the Remoaners, saying it just wasn't fair, that the people who wanted us all to Leave were old and stupid and racist and had no vision of the security and prospects that open borders and increasing legislation from foreign interests would bring to our islands. There were predictions of doom and economic collapse, that war would break out in Europe, Fears that innocent Poles and Romanians would be rounded up and shipped home in containers. There were calls for a second referendum, with among many reasons cited being that the vote for a change in the status quo should be something like at least 75 per cent of the electorate. So to Leave it had to be a clear 50 per cent of the people wanting out. Anyone not voting of course would be assumed as wanting to stay, rather than perhaps not caring either way.
There was talk that London, which voted in favour of staying put, had been cruelly ignored by the rest of the country. Let down, even. It was argued that the uneducated bumpkins, peasants and crass northerners had ruined it for Londoners, who of course were the only ones empowered by their exalted location to see what was good and pure and lovely. There were Remainers who argued, on state television (which naturally is centred in London and handy for the Channel Tunnel) were being denied unrestricted, no-visa travel to Europe.
One woman who voted to stay even said to me that the most important aspect of all of this was being able to have holidays in France without the inconvenience of having a passport checked.
Well, each to their own. Given the events recently in Paris and other towns and cities of France I am not sure I am all that keen on going there myself, but we each have our views of what constitutes local bother and what is terrorism bordering on armed insurrection.
We are told that the process of leaving the EU will begin in 2017, and while that seems disappointing to the Leavers like me at least it is promised to happen. In the meantime we continue to operate EU laws, follow their court rulings, pay our fees and any fines imposed, and accept for now we don't have much say in our state of being. We are after all considered a region of Europe and not a nation and generally no one expects a region to have their own ideas and separate needs.
No matter, this is immaterial to the Remoaners, who haven't finished even though the referendum is done. Indeed the recent long drawn out leadership election farce of the Labour party was peppered with loud claims that if Labour's new leader was this bloke or the other chap then we would indeed vote again on this issue, that we would ignore any vote to Leave, that we would immerse ourselves even more in Europe to the point of throwing out Sterling in favour of the Euro.
I would imagine then that unrestricted travel to French holiday resorts would be even easier with the Euro as the only currency. Yes, it makes sense. To some.
*My reason for voting Leave was a matter of laws. I simply want us to make our own laws, governed by the issues affecting this country, rather than meekly adopting perhaps unrealistic laws imposed by Belgians and the like who have no concern about the nations of these islands. It wasn't racism, it wasn't denying access, it wasn't fearing Johnny -- or Ahmed -- Foreigner on our shores. It was the simple desire of having a parliament of our own people on our lands which has to consider what we need to grow and thrive.
When I make a mark in an election, my only concern is that the person I am voting for ably represents me and my family in parliament with the added bonus that he or she will argue for or against laws affecting me and mine. Selfish some may say, but there we are. In the end the only thing that counts is who we are and what we have and what we want to build. Letting some one else make those choices for us without caring is, frankly, bizarre.
(Oh, and in case you're wondering, I don't rate the EU parliament at all as they seem to have very little say in what the unelected Belgian civil servants and various grubby self-interest groups want.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)