None The Wiser

I’ve been watching this little video of our Prime Minister, Theresa May:

It’s only about two and half minutes long, but there’s quite a lot packed into it. A picture is worth a thousand words.

She doesn’t seem to be reading her lines. Her eyes are focused on the camera, and there’s only one or two left-right flickers.

And the camera is hand-held. It’s always moving slightly. So she may well be speaking to whoever is holding the camera – who is almost certainly not from the BBC. She’s doing things the online internet way, using a webcam, and posting on Twitter.

And she seems quite relaxed. She even manages to laugh.

She’s perhaps a bit more pasty-faced than usual. She looked a little bit tired. But not completely shattered.

Where’s it shot? Number 10 Downing Street, I suppose. It doesn’t look like her home. It’s a bit too institutional

I came across it on James Delingpole, who wrote:

I’m afraid I couldn’t actually bear to listen to what she was actually saying.

But I listened. I listened very carefully. And watched very closely. After all, if anyone knows what’s going on with Brexit, she does.

Despite Delingpole saying she was lying, I thought she was speaking quite honestly. I thought she was authentic. I thought she’d just sat down on a sofa, and said what was happening.

She said that British people had voted to leave the EU, and parliament had a duty to deliver that.

But somehow or other she seems to think that we have to leave “with a good deal”. Why? If you’ve decided to leave a restaurant, do you have to do a deal with its management? You just pay the bill and leave. Once you’ve left, you’ve left. Maybe next week you’ll come back again.

But she was saying that we’d either leave the EU with “a (good) deal”, or we couldn’t leave at all, because parliament “has been legislating to  block no deal.”

But if parliament has been legislating to  block no deal, that suggests to me that parliament is in process of legislating to block no deal, and hasn’t completed the process. Because otherwise wouldn’t she have said that “parliament has legislated to  block no deal”?

So my interpretation was that parliament still hadn’t actually blocked no deal. And some people say it can’t, because No Deal is what you’re automatically left with if you haven’t got a deal.

I read yesterday on ZeroHedge a piece whose author said he didn’t think a Remainer Prime Minister and a Remainer parliament would ever deliver Brexit.

I believe that the 17,410,742 people who just expressed their opinion in a democratic vote to leave the European Union are about to find themselves involved in what can only be described as the mother of all stitch ups. Brexit just isn’t going to happen!!!

That’s pretty much been my view of what was going to happen. But he said that he thought Macron would prevent any further delay, and instead parliament would vote to revoke Article 50. And I can’t see them doing that. Because to do that would stand the 2016 referendum result on its head: Parliament would override the people.

Anyway, I tried to glean as much as I possibly could from my Prime Minister’s little account. I’ve watched it several times. But I’m none the wiser.

Couldn’t she have had a G&T rather than a glass of water? And an ashtray as well.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to None The Wiser

  1. Fredrik Eich says:

    Farage has recorded his alternative version of Mays sofa speech

    Farage is correct in my opinion

  2. Fredrik Eich says:

    And this is a nice trip down memory lane and has had a million plus views!

  3. Uncle Nick says:

    I would be very surprised if the camera was hand held. Not in this day and age, and most certainly not with a vast team of media advisors and PR wonks available to get the message out…

    https://www.google.com/search?q=handheld+camera+shake+plugin

  4. slugbop007 says:

    Perhaps the person holding the camera is shaking with rage while listening to the PM’s speech?

    I just watched part three of Adam Curtis’s ‘The Trap’ two nights ago that analyzed the ideas of Isaiah Berlin on Positive Freedom and Negative Freedom.

    I live in a social housing unit for people over the age of 55. Several days ago I saw a new poster on the door leading into the backyard common area. It was a cartoon Dragon, puffing on a cigarette and coughing. The message said Ici, c’est un espace sans fumée (This is a smokefree area). They never specify that it’s tobacco smoke free, just smoke free. Impossible We live just beside the Jacques Cartier Bridge, not too far away are two gas stations  and behind our building is a Hydro-Quebec Generating Station with two gigantic fanlike rotary blades that spin 24 hours a day and make a helluva noise. Added to that, during the past two weeks a factory just beside our building (a bean sprout factory) has been spewing out plumes of white, gray and black smoke from its main chimney nonstop. When the wind blows it blocks the view of their lovely aluminium wall siding and smacks into our faces. Across the street is the syndicated unions headquarters of Quebec. There is a metal grill just to the right of the underground garage entrance. It could be spewing out carbon monoxide around the area but I’m sure yet. It works 24 hours a day and also makes a helluva racket. Nearly 90 decibels at the source and around 70 decibels from my balcony. There is a plaque just beside it that states that you must stand back 9 meters if you smoke. I changed it to 9mm.

    Yesterday I purchased a carbon monoxide monitor. I am going to take readings of all these suspect sources from the supposed smoke-free zone in the common area and see what comes up.

    Several minutes ago I was thinking of a choice between Beethoven or Robespierre. Beethoven the Liberator, Robespierre the Dictator. Then it occurred to me that the fanatics of TC consider themselves as Liberators. This is a serious problem. How do we counteract this dangerous pretense that they are propagating worldwide?

    slugbop007

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      “Then it occurred to me that the fanatics of TC consider themselves as Liberators”
      Well, everyone always thinks that they are on the side of the “good guys” and not on the evil side!

    • Frank Davis says:

      Then it occurred to me that the fanatics of TC consider themselves as Liberators. This is a serious problem. How do we counteract this dangerous pretense that they are propagating worldwide?

      Of course they think of themselves as Liberators, and Doing Good. How else could they live with themselves? It’s a belief that’s counteracted whenever the opposite message is put out: that they’re actually just bullying bastards..

      As, for example, here.

      P.S. Here’s part 3 of the Trap

  5. Doonhamer says:

    Her elbows are glued to the settee. Just in case she pulls a Blair by making gestures of sincerity.
    Her face is always in same position on screen. Other stuff wobbles about. Wierd.

  6. Frank Davis says:

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/04/09/house-of-lords-and-the-queen-rubber-stamp-law-stopping-no-deal-brexit/

    The House of Lords and the Queen have signed off on the Cooper Bill which will force Prime Minister Theresa May to seek a Brexit delay and stops the UK leaving the EU in a clean break.
    After the House of Commons forced through three readings, a committee and a reporting stage in one day to pass the Cooper-Letwin Bill by a single vote last week, Parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, gave its unopposed third reading Monday night.

    The bill, put forward by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Remainer Sir Oliver Letwin, was then handed it back to the Commons to debate Lords amendments at around 8pm, with the Commons passing the bill just before 11pm, accepting the final House of Lords amendment by 390 votes to 81 – a majority of 309, according to The Guardian.

    Any hopes that Queen Elizabeth II would block the legislation aimed at frustrating and blocking the June 2016 Brexit decision were dashed when barely a quarter of an hour later, the bill received Royal Assent — where the Monarch agrees to make a bill an Act of Parliament.

    The House of Commons explained that “while the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this has not happened since 1707, and Royal Assent today is considered a formality.”

  7. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Here is an attempt at levity – substitute name of politician as preferred:
    Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in Disneyland one day.
    As they walk, they come across a sign: “Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world”.
    “I’m entering,” said Snow White.
    After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, “Well, how’d ya do?”
    “First Place, of course. I’m the fairest one of all” said Snow White.
    They continue walking and they see another sign.
    “Contest for the strongest man in the world.”
    “I’m entering’ says Superman. After half an hour he returns and they ask him, “How did you go?”
    “First Place,” answers Superman. “How could you ever doubt?”
    They continue walking when they see yet another sign: “Contest for the greatest liar in the world.”
    Pinocchio confidently says “This one is mine!” Half an hour later, he returns sobbing, with tears in his eyes, quite inconsolable.
    Snow White and Superman ask what happened as they try to calm Pinocchio down.
    Pinocchio weeps, saying “I didn’t even get through the first round. Competition was full of British politicians, and I never even heard of the winner, some chick named Theresa.”

    Here is the plaintive lament I sent to the Minister for Home Affairs, seeking the boon of treating cigarettes imported by post identically to cigars (stark evidence of elitist prohibitionist snobbery?).

    Please feel free to flame as needed… ;-/

    From: Jarratt, Mark
    Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 5:33 PM
    To: ‘minister@homeaffairs.gov.au’
    Cc: ‘gai.brodtmann.mp@aph.gov.au’ ; ‘andrew.leigh.mp@aph.gov.au’ ; ‘tobaccopolicy@homeaffairs.gov.au’
    Subject: Request for Identical Treatment of Imported Cigarettes and Cigars

    Hon Peter Dutton, MHR
    Minister for Home Affairs
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600

    Via e-mail

    Cc: Ms G Brodtmann, Member for Canberra
    Dr Andrew Leigh, Shadow Assistant Treasurer
    Tobacco Policy, Department of Home Affairs

    Dear Minister Dutton,

    I write seeking amendment of the proposed prohibition from 1 July 2019 on importing cigarettes, but not cigars, using the international postal system.

    Home Affairs Notice 2019-013 (copy attached) states that with effect 1 July 2019 tobacco importers including individuals will be obliged to obtain a permit in advance for every tobacco shipment.

    If no permit has been issued or is quoted when a shipment of tobacco arrives in Australia, the goods will be seized as prohibited imports.

    Permits will not be issued for tobacco products imported by international post, except cigars.

    Shipments of cigarettes, but not cigars, sent by post are to be treated as prohibited imports, seized as forfeit to the Crown then destroyed.

    I import cigarettes shipped through the international postal system every few months. My cigarette orders are solely for personal use and are never “…sold, distributed, supplied or exported”.

    My preferred cigarettes are unavailable in Australia, and my commercial tobacco merchant does not send orders via air or sea freight, only by registered air mail. I can obtain a statement from my tobacco merchant confirming they ship via post only, should that be material.

    I pay the import duties and taxes for cigarettes of higher quality than the government approved tobacco products available in Australian shops, as that is my individual preference.

    A copy of the latest tobacco import notice of assessment I paid is also attached.

    The government proposes to prohibit a particular method of import (the global postal system) then seize the goods, with no option for importers to pay the duties and taxes.

    Cigars and cigarettes fall to the same Customs Tariff item 24022020 and attract the same import duties and taxes, currently at 900% ad valorem.

    Denying me and other consumers our preferred tobacco products solely if they are shipped by post appears unfair and unjustified.

    Convincing “public health” rationale to justify treating imports via post of cigarettes solely for personal use as prohibited imports is absent.

    I therefore request the government as a matter of equity extends the proposed exemption for cigars imported by post to cigarettes imported by post, so tobacco products falling to Customs Tariff item 24022020 are treated identically.

    Thank you in advance for considering this request, and I look forward to your favourable reply.

    I have written in similar terms to Ms G Brodtmann, Member for Canberra, the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and the tobacco policy email address tobaccopolicy@homeaffairs.gov.au listed in Home Affairs Notice 2019-013.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mark Jarratt
    8 Conder St
    Weston ACT 2611

    • Timothy Goodacre says:

      The situation in Australia is intolerable. What a nasty country. Even worse than the UK if that is possible !

    • RdM says:

      Bravo !!

      But I found this para quite hard to parse.
      I had to read it several times to get it.
      Such filigree excellence.

      Convincing “public health” rationale to justify treating imports via post of cigarettes solely for personal use as prohibited imports is absent.

      But I fear others might not appreciate it, eyes glaze over, not pick it up.
      Such separation of objects – I don’t have English enough to describe them;-

      I think you meant something like, drafting,

      Convincing rationale from “public health” to justify treating imports via post of cigarettes solely for personal use as prohibited imports is absent.

      I’d might add completely absent.

      I’d put it more like

      There has been no rationale from “public health” to justify treating imports via post of cigarettes solely for personal use as prohibited imports.

      And maybe substitute “no reasoned argument” for ‘rationale’ in the above.

      First thoughts – similar here, detail later.

      Cheers !!!

      • RdM says:

        Convincing instead of reasoned?
        All that propaganda needs convincing reasoned arguments to rebut.
        Plenty have accumulated.

        • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

          Great editing thanks RdM. Yes you are correct. My first draft included perhaps shall we say emotive terms. Banning a specific tobacco product (cigarettes) if arriving by a specific shipment method (parcel post), but exempting another specific tobacco product (cigars) was the final straw. Where is the documented Cabinet decision deciding to wage a passive-aggressive war against 3.5 million Australian smokers…appalling collectivist coercion.

      • RdM says:

        Tired here now at nearly midnight, drinks, inadequate supper …
        I’d like to catch up this more again, perhaps we can, even privately.
        Worth going on with, I think.

  8. Pingback: All Wight Now – Library of Libraries

  9. John_R says:

    “Cigars and cigarettes fall to the same Customs Tariff item 24022020 and attract the same import duties and taxes, currently at 900% ad valorem.”

    Mark – I wrote a letter to my MP about the ridiculous rate of tax but didn’t send it fearing I’d be labelled a crank. I put it on the comments here but while Frank ignored it others like Rose were encouraging. Have you ever had any response on the issue? Do they even acknowledge any of the consequences such as domestic violence, crime, black market etc?

  10. John_R says:

    Thanks Frank. Not a problem. I’ve since moved to Tasmania only to find the Hobart City Council about to vote on making a large swathe of the CBD “Smoke Free”. And nothing can be done other than just not go there, as these people are impervious to reason and common sense.

    • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

      Hello John R, I have written to the local member of parliament (MHR Brodtmann, not standing for re election) and ACT Sen Seselja 6 times over the last 5 or so years. I have always been fobbed off with platitudes direct from the anti-tobacco song sheet. The federal Health dept is infested with tobacco prohibitionists and lifestyle controllers, who recruit other petty dictators and are the sole source of objective (not! Ideological) advice to politicians. They too fobbed me off when I asked what consumer information and ‘public health’ aims were served by removing details of chemicals claimed to harm health from the inspired plain propaganda packs. Local councils often jump on the anti-tobacco anti- smoker bandwagon. The Hobart proposal is a disgraceful attempt to censor reality. The council bullies who propose such illiberal intrusion should be challenged. Even anti-tobacco fanatics like S Chapman agree there is evidence whatsoever that open air exposure to tobacco smoke is harmful. Any claims were absent in news reports: as usual yet more infringement of free choice and personal autonomy is uncritically accepted. You could also write to the Mercury but most of their reports also seem to be biased towards prohibitionist state coercion and control. I do not yet have any responses to my request to treat cigarettes identically to cigars if imported by post, but that’s a bit irrelevant at the moment as the interfering puritans in the Arizona state dept of bullying smokers have used power they should not have to close down my favourite online Ukrainian tobacco merchant. The Arizona zealots obviously hate smokers, and hate us. saving money. Their website and others deserve to be attacked, illiberal intolerant paternalists…disgraceful extraterritorial state persecution. Grrr. 🤬

  11. Charles Burns says:

    From my New York perspective, I have to wonder why does she think the EU will give the UK a good deal? Brexit is all bad news for the EU, but Brexit is what the people voted for, so the Parliament damn well better do it, seems to me. Yes, it will hurt at first, but Brexit is the right thing to do. If the politicians prevent Brexit, the world will know that the will of the UK people means nothing. Not a good precedent to set, even though deep down we all know, as smokers, that Western democracy is just a sham facade now.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.