The Bewilderness

Toxic

British and French leaders disagree on European reform. The BBC shocks with its surprise headline. And an insightfully thin article: the British want changes (actually the Conservatives would like to repatriate powers...unmentioned) and the French prefer the status quo, or their position of predominant influence....also unmentioned. 

The actual details of the summit indicate that the French view British deregulation of Europe as "toxic". Looks like Hollande is lining up the radical right as his replacement.

 

Six Paths of Connection

Great Britain is criss-crossed by long distance paths: some marked on Ordnance Survey maps; some accessible through websites where such matters are collated. All are connected in one way or another. 

When completing long distance paths: does the goal of completion become an obsession? Are these connections a hidden set of highways and byways: perhaps a hidden lymph system set down and away fromthe busier nerve systems of roads and rail.

All I know is that there a lot of paths and, time enough, to walk them. 

An entente not yet cordiale

Whereas Russia may favour bellicose utterances in reaction to specific developments, the diplomatic events of recent weeks support a certain pratical warming towards the West. Some of this is propelled by necessity: the security of the winter Olympics at Sochi on the Black Sea and a tentative fear within the Russian elites that plunging fuel prices could jeopardise the hard-won financial stability of centralised Muscovy. Some of it may be shoring up the flanks. Russia does not require hostility from Europe when that alliances that have cemented relationships with China appear far more fragile under the troubles hitting China's maritime littoral. China is unpredictable in its associations.

If any country's relationships with Russia plunged to low depths then it was the United Kngdom. However, backchannels have been lit up for some years now and, like France, expanding co-operation is achieved through the defence industries. A treaty on co-operation (in non-sensitive technology) has been underway for some months. It should soon be signed.

These small steps indicate that Russia understands the fear of two armed camps and, wisely, does not wish to see conflict in East Asia pull other countries within its orbit. A multipolar world is to be welcomed but neutrality is becoming a natural option: Russia is a European power with interests in Asia; or an Asian power that extends to Europe. It just depends upon who is asking. 

One castle and some fields

The Three Castles Path is a long distance route that commences on the Thames near Windsor Castle and ends at the third fortress in Winchester. Walkers may witness the second (or middle) castle at Odiham whilst meandering along the Basingstoke canal. This is the canal, constructed during the eighteenth century, that links the Wey navigation with Basingstoke. Most of the waterway is intact and there was recent evidence of dredging, the path narrowed by mounds of mud on the side. Yet, the limit of navigation is reached soon after the castle and the canal flows away into a blocked tunnel at Greywell, an anticlimactic end behind a screen of trees and ferns. 

The path commences through a series of historic Hampshire villages and via a set of lakes on the leg from Crowthorne. However, the flooding did take its toll and we had to take a short detour to avoid an impromptu river. Many of the village cemeteries held more gravestones of servicemen than I recall seeing on other walks. Perhaps this is a local feature; perhaps not. 

The view of Odiham Castle, now a picaresque ruin, is short. Built as a castle for King John, this mediaeval stronghold is now a walled shadow. It is hard to believe that this also formed a site for Parliament. The castle is a good stopping point for photos since it stands only a little way from the path. However, the stop is short and once you are back on the road, the canal is shortly replaced by good tracks and some field walks. 

The route does not go to Basingstoke so a further two miles can be factored in via the footpath near Backwood house to reach the town. Despite the dogleg, this was a pleasant parkland walk and reinforced the notion that the Three Castles path aims for the posher parts of the south-east.

Angels and fools

The Church of England has published prudent and moderate guidance on how its clergy and members should use social media. Prudent and sensible in the way that all large organisations issue guidelines to avoid legal risks and reputational damage. The Church of England is guided by the possibility of fools rushing in and angels that may well fear to tread the 'net.  

The media have characterised these principles as commandments; sometimes accompanied by a criticism that the spontaneity and interest of online conversations will be sucked dry. A valid point but after scandals and bad apples, can you blame the Church for wishing to avoid a social media meltdown on its watch, especially where anonymity is concerned.

Yet the advice only serves up dangers, not opportunities. The greatest vehicle for outreach since the printing press is treated as a risk management exercise; who would set up a blog in the Church of England if these commandments remove any possibility of reaching a hand out to the community. 

The strongest enemy of innovation and new ventures is risk management, as deployed by organisations. Since certain activities can cause great risk, they are viewed as a non-permissive action. Angels fear to tread because the fools have told them that the risk is too great!

The Royal Censorious Charter for Politicians to silence journalists (in the public interest)

Thomas Hughes, writing in The Guardian, uses an international visit of editors to highlight dangers to press freedom in the United Kingdom. Not the freedom to think, or the freedom to write (whomsoever you are): just the freedom of the press. A large corner of a wider field. Yet, the article becomes a whinge about how the Guardian is being harassed under the Snowden affair. Hughes may well be correct that the Guardian has been targeted; but was the Telegraph no less pilloried by politicians for its publication of their expenses. Yet, their information did not potentially threaten the securocrats so they were not prevented from destroying the final shreds of perceived decency in the political classes.

Thomas's articlle would have appeared to be more serious if he had defended press freedom in its totality. But a self-serving encomium for the actions of the Guardian whilst supporting a half-baked system of state regulation that was designed to shield the rich, famous and powerful from scrutiny (why else would politicians support it?) shows why the left-wing press in the United Kingdom does not understand freedom. 

The freedom of the press has been circumscribed in the United Kingdom for a long time as the grounds for what is deemed acceptable has narrowed. In Orwellian fashion, freedom to think has been restricted under speech codes and a culture of acceptability in utterance and behaviour. The Royal Charter with its Board of self-selected censors would ensure that the press (or anyone who writes) could only write according to their moral sensibilities. Anything else would not be argued with, only constrained.

The Guardian remains a useful idiot and accompliace in curbing our powers to speak. 

Fracked by Europe?

Well, the coalition government has taken up fracking. The regulation is overkill and the local communities have to be bribed. All of this is caused by restrictive planning laws and property rights. Anything on the surface is the property owners, but underneath belongs to the state. 

Even with the most restrictive planning laws devised, Europe is not satisfied. The Green MPs are calling the bribery of local communities state aid and the European branch of the Commission wants every well to have ten thousand reports in triplicate, just in acase a woodlouse is washed away.

Jobs, energy competitiveness and the sucking sound of the Eurozone economy howling into the void do not sway these acolytes from their track. 

All must be eaten by the undead Commission and its raft of zombie regulators. 

Sharon

Ariel Sharon, the warrior turned politician, has finally slipped away after a coma. He remained in this steady state of unconscious limbo for eight years. What would he say of the changes that have occurred in his absence: the Arab Spring and the US withdrawal from the Middle East? 

Judicious aggression and self-reliance are two of the values invoked by the Israeli political elite as they bind past and present. The United States cannot be viewed as an eternal ally of Israel and, from their perspective, its fickle nature has been self-evident of late with the rapprochement of Iran. Sharon would not have trusted an elected Islamist president. Hamas had already invoked one man, one vote, one time. He might have expected no less from elections in the Arab spring and warned that the most likely outcome was instability, chaos and war.

It is disappointing that the world has lived down to Sharon's expectations. As a consequence, the world is less safe for Israel and less safe for us.  

When does the Commons have a vote on war?

Does Parliament now have a vote before soldiers are ever sent into action? This seems to be the argument of Anne Perkins. Would this override treaty obligations such as NATO?

The answer is surely negative. Specific interventions, subject or not to UN approval, may now require parliementary approval. Defending British territory or meeting treaty obligations are surely still the prerogative of the executive. Could one foresee the PM demanding a vote if Britain were invaded or if Article V of the NATO Charter was invoked?

Mapping this precedent will take some time and further wars.

I want to make my mark on the BreXit ballot

The Liberal Democrats promised, once upon a time, in their manifesto that the British electorate should hold an In-Out referendum on EU membership. Soon after, they reneged on this promise. Their reasons for this change have never held water. Their unprincipled nature is clear. Every policy adopted is clothed in sanctimonious and hypocritical language though it is designed for naked advantage. This extends from House of Lords reform to the proportional representation vote.

It is an unedifying sight to watch unelected Lords, put their through the patronage of their parties, conspire to remove the right of the British public to vote on the most important relationship in this polity. Their actions show that they do not trust us and that is reflected straight back at these apparatchiks. 

For an issue of such importance, and as an opportunity which Labour and the Liberal Democrats loathe, the Tory government should use the Parliament Act to force through this democratic measure. We deserve no less.