We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Seeing modern Britain for what it is

Sometimes the views of Britain one reads in the American press suggest to me that the authors must have visited Britain in some parallel universe rather than the one I live in.

Every now and again however, I read an article that suggests not just that there are indeed commentators in the USA who understand Britain just fine, but that some of them understand the truth about Britain a great deal better than many British journalists and the majority of Britain’s dismal political class.

The sad truth is that British journalists who are not sounding shrill and alarmed clearly have not grasped the magnitude of what is about to happen to the British people’s remaining ability to live under accountable governance and accessible law. As a result, the only voices in Britain which seem to be aware of the rapidly approaching blackhole that the United States of Europe represents are the perpetually shrill and alarmist tabloid newspapers like the resolutely low-brow Sun newspaper.

Thus it is this tabloid rag that Washington Times journalist Paul Craig Roberts quotes extensively:

Next month, Mr. Blair intends to give his approval to a new European Union constitution, which would create a United States of Europe and turn Parliament into the equivalent of a local council.

Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the Sun, Britain’s largest newspaper, says Mr. Blair’s decision signs away 1,000 years of British sovereignty and hands “control of our economic, defense, foreign and immigration policies to Brussels. The EU will also gain authority over our justice, transport, health and commerce systems and dictate the strength of union power.”

Mr. Blair has ruled out a referendum or vote on his decision to terminate the existence of Britain as a country. He says the issue is too complicated for voters to understand.

Think about that for a moment. Do you think it is too difficult for people to understand the difference between being an independent country and a province in a European empire? Do you think voters can’t understand the difference between electing a government that is accountable to them and being ruled from afar?

[…]

Britain’s unique legal system, with its habeas corpus and double jeopardy protections, would cease to exist. Native Britons could be imprisoned for voicing opposition to their cities being overrun by Third World immigrants. But Mr. Blair thinks these changes are too difficult for British voters to evaluate.

[…]

Britons can be arrested for self-defense. Imagine having to decide whether to submit to rape, robbery or assault or face arrest for responding with excessive force. Force capable of driving off an attacker is likely to be “excessive,” especially if accomplished with use of a weapon.

[…]

Habeas corpus and protection against double jeopardy mean little when criminal sanctions apply to self-defense and to children playing with toy guns. It might be that, practically speaking, the British have already lost the protection of their law. In choosing Mr. Blair, perhaps the British people showed an indifference to continued national sovereignty.

Read the whole article. I am indifferent to the fading vaingloriousness of states. However I am far from indifferent to a process that will lock in the ever increasing growth of state by making its power centres even more remote than they already are, thereby making them immune to even the weak checks and balances of locally sourced law and democracy.

Many have fought the advent of the European super-state in Britain, but it has just been one issue amongst many. Only now and oh so very belatedly have a few newspapers and media commentators picked up the horn and sounded it. Suddenly it is dawning on them that the battle has now reached the very last ditch almost unnoticed, whilst the mass of people sleepwalk towards the end of a thousand years of evolving political culture. Lose this one and there will be no more political means left for opposition. No doubt the perpetual growth of mass surveillance and the impending introduction of ID cards at this time is just a coincidence. Sure.

Welcome to a dying nation.

Chirac Planning Career Suicide

Nice ‘fisking’ of Chirac’s preparations of G8 summit agenda by Collins on Pave France based on yesterday’s article in the Telegraph titled Chirac to embarrass Bush at G8 conference:

He said Evian’s main goal would be “to build the institutions and rules of a global democracy, open and interconnected”

Translation: I’m going to feed Bush a steady line of Communist bullshit until he gets fed up and leaves. Once he is gone, I will take cheapshots at the U.S., and then deny them when later confronted.

Regulation is for the birds

It isn’t often that one finds a damning indictment of state regulation in the pages of the Guardian, so I cannot possibly let this opportunity slip by unblogged.

The background to this comes courtesy of one of these ‘food safety scandals’ that periodically burst into the media spotlight and engender all manner of ‘shock, horror’ headlines before slipping quietly down the memory hole into oblivion. This time, the scandal involves chicken. Or, more accurately, a simulacrum of chicken because it appears that the British market is being flooded with cheap chicken products that have been pumped with water to artificially inflate them and stuffed full of hydrogenated beef proteins.

And the distributors are getting away with it, despite the existance of a plethora of complex food safety and labelling regulations and whole slew of portentious-sounding Euro-agencies to enforce them. The Guardian’s Felicity Lawrence is beside herself:

The food standards agency, which we might expect to be our champions in the matter of food quality, seems to think this is all right so long as someone mentions it on a label at some point. Except, of course, since they communicate in Euro-regulation speak, what the white rabbit actually says as he puts on his spectacles is: “This is a labelling issue and a composition issue. It is not a public safety issue.”

So it turns out that all these bureaucrats are good for is issuing sanctimonious press releases and little else. I believe that Ms.Lawrence has (quite accidentally of course) stumbled upon the principle of moral hazard. She, like many others, has hitherto placed her faith in regulations and state enforcers to ensure the quality and safety she requires, only to find that she is left dangling when the crunch comes.

But her tale of woe does have a happy ending. Almost certainly through frustration rather than dazzling insight, Ms.Lawrence comes to exactly the right conclusion:

We must wake up to the reality and to the fact that no one but ourselves will sort it out. Don’t buy cheap chicken.

Bingo! Hopefully Ms.Lawrence has now come to appreciate the perils of assigning over personal responsibility to agents of the state and then hoping and praying that they do the right thing by you. They rarely have and they rarely will.

Regulatory regimes are not just a waste of time and effort, they are actually damaging. They suck a huge amount of otherwise-productive wealth out of society that ends up translated into nothing except sinecure jobs and state pensions.

In any event, the only traders who bother to comply with all these regulations are the ones who are worried about their reputation and, ironically, it is those traders who can be relied upon to provide us with good quality products without the monkey of the state on their backs. They want to make money and stay in business and they don’t achieve those aims by poisoning their customers or brushing them off with inferior, shoddy goods.

So let’s take all these regulations and put them on a bonfire. Yes, there will still be rogues and con-men but, as this story has clearly illustrated, enacting more laws doesn’t stop them anyway. The combination of profit-motive on the supply side and a bit of personal responsibility on the part of the consumer is a better recipe for safety and quality than any number of faceless pen-pushers wielding absurd and counter-productive diktats.

Viking Infidels!!

Has Al-Qaeda hired the Monty Python team as political advisers? I only ask because of this surreal outburst:

O Muslims, take matters firmly against the embassies of America, England, Australia, and Norway and their interests, companies, and employees.

Let’s get this straight; they’re invoking Muslims to attack America (natch), England (obviously), Australia (not unexpected) and… Norway?!?!?!?!?!?

Samizdata quote of the day

A referendum on joining the Euro will cause “all-out internal civil war”

– Dennis McShane, Minister for Europe

I never referred to… [civil war] in the Labour Party. Calling for a referendum… would launch a long civil war in the UK with everyone fighting everyone.

– Dennis McShane, Minister for Europe, subsequent clarification.

[Source: BBC News at Ten, BBC online]

Oh well, that’s all right then.

Cricket is drawing English attention back to Zimbabwe

We in England have been neglecting Zimbabwe. There have been very few postings on the subject here lately, just this from me since the Iraq war, unless I missed something in my backtracking.

That is now changing. Today is day one of the test match cricket series between England and Zimbabwe. The first test is a Lords, the St Peter’s Rome of cricket, and frankly the cricket has been fairly dreary. In a rain interrupted first session England, in the persons of Trescothick and Vaughan, managed 28 without loss. While I wrote what follows, England got to about 100 for the loss of Vaughan. (I could explain, but if you don’t know what that means, you almost certainly don’t care.)

But of course the real story is off the pitch, and frankly this aspect of the situation is proving a whole lot more satisfactory and less embarrassing than I for one had dared to hope.

Take the TV coverage so far, on Channel 4 TV. There has been some play, so that has focussed some attention on the situation. But the rain interruptions mean that Channel 4 have been wheeling out all their if-it-rains plans, and one of them concerns the matter of the, er, regime in Zimbabwe, and any demonstrations against and reactions to that regime.

There have already been demonstrations, both inside (one gutsy demonstrator made her point and got herself shepherded out) and outside the ground. And more to the point, much more to the point, Channel 4 have pointed their cameras at some of this.

If you know anything about TV sports coverage, you’ll know that it can be very misleading when a real world news item erupts in its midst. The tiresome habit of certain English exhibitionists invading sports events in the nude was inflamed by the promise of TV coverage, and is now being suppressed by TV coverage of these idiots also being suppressed. When British soccer fans behave really, really badly, they don’t always make it to the TV shows either. What actually happens between rival fans at Celtic v Rangers soccer matches in Glasgow, for example, is nobody’s business, and certainly never gets to be the business of TV viewers in anything like its full lack of glory. All of which means that the Channel 4 recognition of the “regime problem” is very significant. An enthusiastic pro-Mugabe-ite watching the TV coverage here today would not be a happy bunny.

Pitch invader, demos outside the ground, mainstream news coverage of demos outside the ground, above all the prospect of this relentless drizzle of media focus going on and on throughout the tour, destroying all attempts to suggest that things out there are in any way normal – it’s looking a lot worse than such a person would have been hoping for.

It may even be that the tour going ahead, but surrounded by the ever louder claim that it shouldn’t have, is the worst possible media outcome for the “regime”. I surely hope so.

Above all, there is Henry Olonga. → Continue reading: Cricket is drawing English attention back to Zimbabwe

The Matrix off-loaded

I went to see The Matrix Reloaded last night, with two other Samizdatistas, who will no doubt share their opinions with you here. Based on my impressions, which ranged from boredom to frustration with the pomposity of the characters, I concluded that the film is so firmly wedged up its own backside that it is unlikely to re-emerge for the next sequel due in November. The Matrix Reloaded is a far cry from the original film’s mind-twisting plot, lacking its predecessor’s film noir atmosphere and plausible ontological riddles.

David Edelstein of Slate has put it so much better:

The grim news is that The Matrix Reloaded is as messy and flat-footed as its predecessor is nimble and shapely. It’s an ugly, bloated, repetitive movie that builds to a punch line that should have come an hour earlier (at least). Then it ends as it’s just beginning: Stay tuned for The Matrix Revolutions, coming in November to 8,000 theaters near you.

Almost from the start, Reloaded feels different from the original—more stilted, mechanical, blockbuster-business-as-usual, Lucasoid. Dull staging, tin-eared dialogue (I haven’t even told you about Eurotrash king and queen of evil, played by Lambert Wilson and Monica Bellucci), bad acting: What went wrong? Have the Wachowskis been pickling in their own self-importance for too long? When they made the original, they’d come off their terrific low-budget lesbian noir Bound (1996), and they gave The Matrix a lean, no-nonsense, B-movie thrust. Here they seem to be bogged down by their budget and by Owen Paterson’s top-heavy sets, and almost every sequence goes on for too long and to no particular end.

We can speculate on these things when you’ve seen the movie. And you will see it—and maybe even convince yourself it’s spectacular. (Some people thought The Phantom Menace [1999] was a good movie—there’s a collective delusion for you.) But a bigger bang for your buck would be the Wachowskis’ related package of nine short animated films, The Animatrix, which proves that peoplelike cartoons can be much more enlivening than cartoonlike people. In The Matrix, Neo broke through the artificial into the real; in The Matrix Reloaded, he’s stuck in a bigger simulation, with no exit in sight.

I am sure this will upset many a Matrix affictionado. I too was genuinely looking forward to seeing the film. I loved the first one and still cannot comprehend how the same people managed to produce such stilted, pompous and at times boring sequel. Sure, the special effects are amazing and will enter the film-making history, just as the first one did. (The motorbike in the car chasing scenes did quicken even my pulse briefly.) But do they compensate for the feeble plot and insufferable dialogue? Well, I don’t think so.

It’s us…

…Natch!

They’ve got God on their side

I’ll bet that the EUnuchs are beside themselves with glee now that they have managed to co-opt the Pope:

Just three weeks before the EU membership referendum in Poland, Pope John Paul II has recommended that his compatriots join the European Union.

Sure to be seen as a benediction by many in Poland. Does the Pontiff not realise that the EU is the work of the Devil?

EU must be joking!

Once in a blue moon I stumble across a story that appears so contrary and so bizarre that I honestly do not know what to make of it.

In fact, I had to stand up, breath deeply and take a walk around my apartment just to make sure I wasn’t dreaming when I read that the Israelis have expressed an interest in joining the European Union:

“In principle, the minister thinks a possibility exists for Israel to join the EU, since Israel and Europe share similar economies and democratic values,” said a spokesperson for Mr Shalom before adding, “it doesn’t mean he is preparing the dossier for applying tomorrow”.

MEP, Marco Pannella, of the Transnational Radical Party is said to be heading the campaign for Israeli membership and claimed on Tuesday that Israel does not exclude submitting an application for full membership during the term of this government.

Alright, no binding promises on the table but just the idea that this is even being floated at quite high-level raises a whole bevy of questions without, as far as I can tell, a single satisfactory answer.

First of all, is either party serious? For the EUnuchs it may be. They have made no secret of their ambitions to expand their sphere of influence over the Middle East and North Africa. But do they really think that they are going to be able to cope with the…er local difficulties?

And what about the Israelis? I can see the appeal of access to European markets for their industrial and agricultural output but have they stopped to contemplate the cost of the greatly increased regulatory burden that would be imposed on them? And what about defence and foreign policy, both of which would eventually have to be decided in Brussels? Not even for a fleeting second can I imagine the Israelis being willing to hand over their security to anyone, let alone the EU. Do they honestly imagine that the Belgians are going to come riding to their rescue should the need arise?

On the other hand, maybe it is not serious at all, in which case, what are the Israelis up to?

No, I’m afraid it’s all a big mystery to me but then the opaque and shadowy labyrinth of international relations often are. Searching for solid intelligence amidst the power-plays, hidden agendas, ulterior motives and nuanced positions is enough to drive anyone to the edge of madness and I am not prepared to go that far.

I am just intrigued.

And, by the by, who the flaming hell are the ‘Transnational Radical Party’? I have never heard of them and I can’t be bothered to go googling for an answer but let’s take it as read that I don’t like the sound of them one little bit.

Plodding PCs

Far be from me to try to tell HMG how to run their nationalised industries, but if I was ever to be charged with such a thankless task, I would not go about it like this:

Fitness tests for police recruits are being made easier in an attempt to increase the number of women officers, the Home Office has announced.

Recruits’ speed and agility will no longer be put to the test as this is where most of the women have been failing.

Tests of strength and endurance will be made easier and the speed and distances recruits have to run will be halved.

This may actually be a blessing. As we watch the apparatus of a police state growing around us we can take some comfort that the police may get set on us for all the wrong reasons but at least we will be able to run away from them.

Flying without flyers

On Monday night I watched a Channel 4 TV documentary about the battle between Lockheed and Boeing for the contract to build the next US jet fighter. Winner takes all, and Lockheed won with this. It’s all completely new stuff to me, although I’m sure Dale Amon has been all over this for years.

At the end this show there was a tantalising reference to unmanned flight, in which, it just so happens, one of the companies that is doing best is … Boeing. Ever since I’ve been on the lookout for uses for this kind of aircraft, besides searching out and bombing enemies on a battlefield I mean. I’m sure Dale Amon has been all over that question as well, but to me, it’s a new one. What can you do with these gismos? War, yes, but what else?

(By the way, I take it there are people on the ground paying attention to these things when they’re in the air, and that they don’t genuinely and completely fly themselves. Tell me this is true.)

In the small hours of Wednesday morning I found myself watching another TV documentary, this time about how they’re using swarms of these unmanned planes to make better weather forecasts. And here’s something else which was apparently made possible by unmanned flight, this time in the form of a movie about birds.

Any other offers? There have to be lots of other brilliant things you can do with flying robots. One obvious application springs to mind, which is unmanned cargo planes full of stuff which, at a pinch, you can stand to lose.

And what about stuff you can’t afford to lose? How about “unmanned” passenger planes? After all, there are unmanned passenger trains now. We have them in London, on the Docklands Light Railway. So why not an unmanned 747? I can of course well imagine why not, but seriously, could that ever help at all?