Category Archives: Political
In the still-unfolding, still-unfinished aftermath of the bitterly disputed US Presidential Election of 2020, it seems like only yesterday – because it was only yesterday – that the United States of America was reportedly teetering on the brink of turmoil on the streets. Turmoil that would be at least a nuisance and, perhaps, far worse, internecine. The nation had also seemed to be in peril of the state meting out repression upon those who manifested their heterodox belief in a theory opposed to the alternative theory in which believe those who now have the upper hand politically.
Today, President Biden spoke fine words of peace, unity and reconciliation in his Inauguration Speech. This is welcome, but we’ve already seen how he is capable of that in one breath and saber-rattling in the next. (In fact, he did it today.) Biden’s sincerity will be tested. Actions speak louder than words and sometimes contradict the actor’s words, or tell us which mutually contradictory sayings of the actor to believe and which to put down to empty, schmaltzy virtue-signaling.
It wasn’t a promising sign that Biden characterised his inauguration as a “victory for democracy”, knowing that tens of millions in the USA still consider it to have been a defeat for democracy and many more than that all around the world don’t know what to make of it.
A real victory for democracy would bring peace. But that peace would be at a heavy price for a politician, an unfashionable curiosity as to the truth in a post-truth world. For democracy to win and unanimously to be seen to have won, experts in probability and statistics must first do some data collection and analysis that the new Administration has ordered to be done. Both Biden and Trump alike will have to agree to follow the science, whether it brings good news or bad for their political ambitions.
No science, no peace. Or at best precious little peace, because any peace will be founded on ignorance and fear, not truth and respect.
WHAT WOULD SOLOMON DO?
Why aren’t Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and the unhappy Americans one encounters online these days all clamouring for science to be used to find out objectively which candidate would emerge as the real winner of the presidential election if only valid votes could be counted? (It wouldn’t be necessary to weed out all the invalid votes and start the counting all over again in every state, just to answer this simple question.)
“Mummy-eee … it said on the news that Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully. Does that mean he’s a crook and will have to go to prison?”
“I don’t know, darling. Mr Corbyn and his party will have to decide that. Let’s wait and see what they say.”
- Has Boris been “found guilty”, of “breaking the law”?
- Is Boris now officially a “criminal”?
- Should Boris be impeached? Continue reading
Another court case I brought because nobody else did:
There has been renewed talk lately of “Parliament” (meaning the House of Commons) somehow “blocking” a so-called “no-deal Brexit”, the outcome for which Parliament (meaning both houses) has already legislated, unless the Commons, in a “meaningful vote”, approves a withdrawal agreement that is actually on offer, before the statutory “exit day” arrives. Exit day has been 29th March 2019, either 12th April 2019 or 22nd May 2019, definitely 12th April 2019, and is now 31st October 2019. Continue reading
Another exciting episode in my courtroom drama of a life
As reported here on Tuesday 9th April 2019, I suspected then that the Prime Minister might purport to revoke the UK’s article 50 notice to leave the EU before exit day, then defined as Friday 12th April 2019 at 23:00. That is, if the Council didn’t give her an extension that night (which, in the event, the Council did).
I therefore attended the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday 10th April, clutching these papers. I was seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the Prime Minister from canceling Brexit off her own bat. There had been dangerous talk on the BBC news since the Sunday of that week (when I’d listened to Radio 4 online in Bucharest) that led me to fear that summary cancelation of Brexit on the Prime Minister’s part might be her back-up plan if denied her extension.
It is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of politicians are liars. Some, however, are more prolific liars than others. And any honest, objective, even semi-intelligent person knows that Donald Trump takes the blue ribbon in the lying game. He lies so much, he can’t even play a game of golf without cheating.
An episode filmed in the lifelong family tragedy of one child’s ruined childhood, when he was only 4, helped lead to a courtroom comedy more than two years later.
Events including (but not confined to) those caught on camera as shown in the video, led to a court case that ended somewhat comically in 2017. Comically, but, alas, not happily for the child concerned.
First, the incident that, in part, kicked off the court case. The following video was shot in December 2014.
On new metaphorical applications of the Schrödinger’s Cat thought-experiment or joke and the need for a new legal test case, in the context of #Brexit
Before we get close again to a default, no-deal Brexit, perhaps next time with no extension on offer, it’d be nice to discover the British PM’s as-yet-undisclosed belief as to the correct answer to an unresolved constitutional question. That question is what the constitutional requirements are for revoking the Article 50 notice already given.
A key question within that is whether there would need to be a new Act of Parliament before the PM could revoke Article 50 notice. What does the PM think is the answer to that? It’s not at all clear from the news what she thinks.
There is a long and noble tradition, in mature liberal democracies like our British one, of people putting up patiently with bitter but polite speeches made by defeated would-be elected politicians, for whom too few had voted. Speeches, that is, putting these election losers’ spins on events, typically explaining how their defeats, and their conquerors’ electoral victories over them, might only have been merely “Pyrrhic”, after all. (You know – the Tories won the election, but Labour were the “real” winners, or vice versa – that sort of daft rhetoric.) Continue reading