The recent election of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of Justice in the United States of America, split the Senate between Republicans and Democrats, more or less equally. This gives a snap shot of American politics as quivering in the balance, much as currently is the dis-United Kingdom.

And yet, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to be independent of political views. It should act as a check, to any excesses of the Senate, Representatives and the Executive Orders of the President. President Trump refers to this in the edition of The White House 10^th July 2018 as follows;

“what matters is not a judge’s political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.”[

How outrageously ironic then, that the voting procedure for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh was almost exactly along party lines. Only two Senators voted opposite to their parties views which cancelled each other, being one Democrat and one Republican.

You might feel a little compassion for the candidate to have a serious historical criminal allegation made against him when approaching the peak of his career. Allegations of rape are hard to prove when recent and almost impossible so long ago. One Democratic Senator expressed a view that the presumption of innocence is too important a legal principle to override and so could not vote against his nomination. The FBI also closed their investigation conveniently prior to the vote.

With such a clear road ahead I had to wonder why President Trump made an odd remark when addressing a rally of his supporters. He said that the accuser who made the allegation (an old college friend) must have mistaken Brett Kavanaugh for someone else. His supporters whooped for joy at this statement despite it’s absurdity and being completely unnecessary. As far as I am aware this was not the conclusion of the FBI although I have not read their report. Perhaps Mr Kavanaugh has a twin brother? How absurd did Mr Trump need to be at this barbecue of the most crimson of all red herrings?

Remember that some critics of Mr Trump were against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because his power could get Mr T. out of deep water, in the unlikely event that an unexpected tidal surge swamped the White House and it’s barbecue terrace.

How odd that Mr Trump did not challenge the 2,4oo American law professors who objected to Mr Kavanaugh on the grounds of an ‘intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner’, in his congressional testimony. Characteristics that a cynic might say are admired by President Trump; in private if not in public. Characteristics that Mr Trump stated he did not admire in the opening quotation above! Who do you believe? Are the Law Professors being subjective and President objective?

As an observer from far away, I am reminded of another famous leader who was also a master of deception. He too looked down on the populace as easily lead through appealing to their emotions rather than  evaluating corroborated facts. I quote from his book;

It would never come into their (the people’s) heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol 1, ch.X

The scene is the office of the Prime Minister, before the re-election of the Conservative Party without the Liberals. Mr. Cameroon looks up from a newspaper he is reading as Sir Comfrey walks in.

What is it Comfrey? Come on out with it man! You are standing there like a cat having trouble swallowing a canary.

It’s the proof copy of the “Conservative Party Manifesto” Mr. Cameroon – and may I say what a particularly smart tie you are wearing.

OK, enough of the platitudes. It usually means you are hiding something…let me see.

(Cameroon grabs the manifesto while Sir Comfrey peers out of house of commons window)

You’ve missed the ‘leave Europe or not’ referendum promise out Comfrey! Blantantly missing! For Goodness sake why?

(discrete cough) MI5

MI5?

Yes, you see there has, unfortunately, been a memory stick found in a London taxi cab and handed into the police which contains…amongst daily menus for the Commons restaurant, roast potatoes, brussel sprouts that so of thing…a conversation between…

Who?

You and me.

You and me? You mean this room is bugged?

Yes, by MI5 – just in case it is also bugged by the Russians. I see by you blank expression that further explanation…

Too right it is!

Is necessary. (coughs into hand) That all ministerial conversations are now recorded, so that when the Russians should listen in, we can not only deny everything, but also prove what we said.

I see. Clever.

And there is one conversation on that stick in particular that you may remember;- where you are saying that you wish to have a referendum on whether the UK should leave the European Union. You give reasons for this ‘charade’, in your words, as wanting – quote ‘lots and lots of votes from that idiot UKIP party to help the conservatives win the forthcoming election‘ and ‘squeezing my Euro sceptics back into the sceptic tank they came from.’

That sounds more of less the gist of what I said. So what’s wrong with that? We are not likely to loose a referendum are we? I mean the voting public are not as stupid as the dissenters in my own party…are they?

Yes Prime Minister, they probably are since, they did, if you remember, vote for them.

You are going to make a suggestion Comfrey. I have known you long enough. Come on…

Well, it’s mainly about the Irish question.

The Irish question? I haven’t heard those words for a very long time. I thought Northern Ireland was quiet now. I mean, since the Bank Holiday Agreement.

Good Friday Agreement Prime Minister.

Yes, yes that one.

Well it seems that certain long serving members of the department…

You mean yourself.

…long standing and loyal members of the civil service, yes, believe that the Irish question needs to be addressed before any referendum takes place.

Good Lord, Why?

It’s the rather delicate matter of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Smugglers being caught in the spot lights from watch towers positioned every hundred yards along the whole length of the border. And simple citizens crossing to visit family or go shopping. Lost children – pets. They just won’t have a barbed wire border again. Just won’t.

So we need to solve the Northern Ireland thing once and for all?

Precisely.

I see. You are suggesting we Brexit from Northern Ireland instead of Europe? Won’t that be expensive?

The British Treasury Department pays the Treasury of Northern Ireland assembly fourteen billion pounds a year. That is roughly £270 million a week.

Good heavens. Really?

Health, prisons, police, schools, roads…the usually money pits.

Yes. I see. And if we ceded Northern Ireland to the Irish, made a sort of United Irish Republic, we could stop wasting all that money. Clever Comfrey, very, very clever but surely the hard liner loyalists will never tolerate it?

Unless there is an independence referendum in Northern Ireland Prime Minister. It could be accompanied a publicity campaign along the lines of ‘become part of a strong vibrant economy within the prosperous European Union’ – meaning Eire, not us. As you know we don’t attract European money because we are rich whereas the Irish Republic is not. A lot loyalists in Northern Ireland would be happy to be a minority in a United Ireland now; now it very likely to vote in favour of abortions on demand and a host of other, shall we say, un-Catholic, liberal values. Plus they will get the pot holes outside their houses mended. A matter particularly close to their hearts.

I think Comfrey, you are onto a very strong pitch here. I can see us being able to place all the ‘British’ interventions in Ireland in the history box and embracing moving forward into a new prosperity for…Britain rather than that awful mouthful, ‘The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.’

Precisely.

And Stormont, currently in recession due to irreconcilable differences and inability to form a government…is a headache we want to get rid of…

…we can push it all south so to speak.

…prior to any referendum for Britain to leave Europe.

Which British people would never vote for since they are saving 270 million a week  -which we can promise to the NHS and Cat and Dog charities.

I say, do you think the Russians are listening?

I sincerely hope they have written down every word. Homeless cats and dogs in Russia are having a very bad time.

Jolly good. Let’s do it then. No referendum until the Irish Issue Stew, is in the pot. The Euro sceptics in the conservative party will have to shut up for good and I get to be Prime Minister for a good few more terms. Long summer holidays, beach houses…

What an enormous privilege that would be for me Prime Minister.

Comfrey, ring downstairs for some tea and fresh currant buns. I’m feeling an unexpected wave of patriotism all of a sudden.

How Not to Manage Immigration into Europe

Sweden has gone to the polls today, and I don’t yet know the result. But I do know that the country is like many in Europe, frightened of the looming shadow create by right wing parties. The main issue for these is similar to the now defunct, UKIP party in the United Kingdom – ‘we don’t want any more immigrants’.

While statements like this prompt left, centre and right wing parties to reach for their party policy cue cards, we know what they are going to say. This is because the issue of immigration in Europe is subject to polarised thinking, generalisation and simplification.

Instead of making knee-jerk policy statements, I believe they should all be asking questions and conferring on the answers.

‘Who are these immigrants?’

‘Where are they from?’

‘How many are there?’

‘Will our country benefit?’

When I was a young single man, I acquired a visa to live and work in Australia – but it wasn’t automatic. I had to tick box questions that gave me points as a candidate for residency. I passed, but only just and I must have been in the top ten per cent of eligible applicants.

Those who want to enter Europe almost seem to think they have a right to do so. Perhaps they have a good case for political asylum and a good human rights lawyer, or half a million Euros to invest in property and business.

The majority appear to be arriving with nothing and with nothing to offer except unskilled labour. But even their labour might benefit a country who’s own citizens will not work for the minimum wage or on zero hour contracts or as self employed – ‘turn up in the morning and we will tell you if you are needed.’

A large number of those seeking to enter Europe without documentation are from parts of the world suffering stress from war, inept and corrupt governments or a mistaken believe in a yellow brick road leading to free money; places like Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa. These are not ideal candidates to fill the factory floors of Germany or the poly tunnels of Spain.

But the main question has to be, ‘how many immigrants?’

If Europe had say one million citizens and there was one immigrant asking asylum per year, most Europeans would not have a problem. Even the extreme right wing parties would have the carpet pulled from under their feet and gather little support.

But we know that is hypothetical and not the case. Imagine there were two immigrants seeking asylum in a year in a country of one million citizens. Probably the same response.

So continue this exercise increasing the number of immigrants by one per year. At a certain point on a sliding scale, one of those million citizens will say, ‘Hang on! That’s too many immigrants. I had a bad experience involving an immigrant and now I don’t want them in my country. Who can I vote for who is sympathetic to my view?’

Nobody, except a Social Scientist, really knows when this objection will first be raised. Is it at one percent of the indigenous population or more? But we can appreciate that scale is a massive part of the so called ‘immigration problem’.

Further examination of the subject beyond quantity – is quality. Because most economists will explain that immigration is good for a country and part of it’s prosperity. Just look at the United States of America, or indeed, Europe for the proof. Generally and in the long term over several generations, immigration on a certain scale, is a win win situation in terms of quality of life for the host country and the immigrant.

America had no problem with welcoming rocket scientists of doubtful provenance from Germany, after the second world war. The only problem was how to share them with Russia! Australia paid for the fares for white Europeans to come and boost it’s small labour force in the fifties and sixties.

So whilst it is possible to form a view over whether you like apples or oranges to eat, it is more complex to form a view on immigration. In fact, if management of immigration within Europe is regarded as complex – the arguments of the political parties are mostly at the level of preference for oranges or apples.

Perhaps this complexity accounts for why the European Parliament has failed to come up with a workable plan. Freelance do-gooders like the Aquarius ship hoisting exhausted souls out of boats in the Mediterranean, are free to operate as they feel. They have no concern to stem the tide of immigrants by undermining the criminal gangs taking their last savings or improving living standards in homelands. They don’t even return these lost souls to their homes and dependent families, or even to the ports from which they departed so they might track down the traffickers and get their money back. They don’t intercept unsuitable boats as they enter international waters close to land, but operate further away from shore so that boats may sink before rescue. To the well meaning charity workers, they are ‘saving lives’, but from a political angle surely they are just as much traffickers as the illegal traffickers. Their solution is short term and their responsibility ends on the dock side of a reluctant state. 

With a policy on immigration, agreed by all parties including Italy and those countries that have taken more than their fare share and are now feeling the strain- Europe would survive and even thrive the immigration rush.

By having no policy and doing – well, very little – the EU has shown is vulnerable underbelly and in doing so, missed a chance to keep the United Kingdom within Europe. More importantly it has failed to silence the growning dissent from right wing politicians within the remaining states like Sweden, who whilst being booed in public, are fuelled on successful paths by the failures of the EU.

Inside a secure room in the Whitehouse, Washington, a security guard looks at his watch impatiently. The room is painted a cold white. The only decoration is a photograph of the Whitehouse hung on one wall. The Stars and Stripes stands still over an impeccable lawn. Suddenly the door is flung open and the President enters;

‘Is this it?’

A panel of three psychiatrists sit behind a wide table.

‘Come in Mr President and please take a seat?’

‘I hope this won’t take long.’

‘As you are aware, each and every President undergoes a routine psychiatric assessment every six months…’

‘Yeah, yeah…what a complete waste of everyone’s time – most of all mine!’

Beady eyes stare out accusingly under a unlikely ski jump hair style.

‘We will be recording this session and presenting a confidential report to the Senate Committee of Internal Governance.’

She lifts up a sheet of paper and reads out loud.

You have a right to not answer questions if you wish although inference may be taken from any such silence. The answers you may give can not be used in a court of law and are for clinical evidence only.

‘Can we start?’

‘My name is Doctor Kladinsky and I will be presenting the questions. What we are focusing on in this session is the ability, your ability, to distinguish between fact and fiction.’

‘The assistant at the back of the room will be operating the standard so called Lie Detector with a view to simply establishing highly emotional responses, not incorrect statements.’

‘You will know WHEN I AM EMOTIONAL okay?!’

‘What is your name?’

‘Are you kidding me? I’m the fucking President of the United States and A~MERICA and you don’t know my…’

‘These are control questions to establish patterns for the Lie Detector. Please be patient Mr. President.’

‘Donald. The Donald Trump. The most successful business man America has ever see and the greatest…’

‘Please just answer the question.’

A series of nine control questions follow which are sometimes answered simply, sometimes not. The President is sitting awkwardly in his chair with one large hand placed upon the table in front of his interrogators. The Presidential ring sits upon a finger as a badge of office and perhaps, thinks one Doctor, superiority.

‘Why did a highly successful businessman declare his companies bankrupt six times?’

‘Rotten people in the system. My so called “employees” who cannot be trusted to feed the fucking office cat. Rotten people, who I would never employ again. Should have got rid of them sooner, that was my only mistake.’

‘Do you ever feel you are acting out your fictional role from the television series The Apprentice, in your presidential duties?’

‘Is it hot in here or is that just me? You people are weird do you know that?’

‘It’s a simple question…’

‘No I do not! I DO NOT act like an overbearing buffoon like I am sometimes accused off by people who frankly should know better with all your god dam degrees that don’t mean squat!’

‘So the answer is, you do not feel that way.’

‘That’s what I just said.’

‘What do you believe is the function of the free press and media outlets in the United States of America?’

‘To type out a load of shite that they basically MAKE UP.

You must have heard me on this subject many times and I have been nothing if not, consistent. There is not one newspaper editor I am friendly with or in regular communication with. They want fake news and they get it from anywhere – particularly if it makes me look stupid. That they love. I know their game and it is very bad. They are bad people.’

‘What about Fox News?’

‘Oh, you mean TV as well? Obviously Fox News is one organisation that takes trouble to check out it facts before presenting them.’

‘How does it check it’s facts?’

‘They ring me up and I tell ’em. Simple. I get on really well with most of them. Good people.’

‘You have your finger, so to speak, on the Nuclear button.’

‘Oh do I? Excuse me. I didn’t see it there!’

He lifts his ring-heavy hand and holds it above the desk, examining both sides.

‘I said, so to speak. It was a metaphor.’

‘Joke! Gee, you guys have not got a sense of humour.’

‘About nuclear war and your ability to start one?’

‘Oh do I have a red button? I didn’t know. Wow. Wait until Little Kim Rocket Boy hears about this? I wish someone had told me before. Okay, okay, I will be serious. Yeah, I’d push it if America needed protecting from some mad man, not that I think Kim is mad. I know he is.’

‘And risk the mass deaths of American citizens?’

‘Tough job, tough decisions. That’s why they made me President and not you.’

‘How would you know that another country had a ‘madman’ as you put it, as a dictator.’

‘I guess they wouldn’t make sense most of the time. You know, always changing their mind one minute to the next. Some nut who thinks he’s better than everyone else and has his own pet interests and ideas at heart rather than world peace and prosperity. You know, the type of nutter who sacks half his staff and surrounds himself with people who he knows are going to agree, rather than argue. Even then he’s probably not going to listen to them – let alone other sections of government such as the Senate and House of Representatives because his ego is so big he cannot be content unless his ideas and his ways of doing things are followed – even if good science, practical likelihood, economic imperatives and history say the opposite. Oh, yes and I guess he, or she, is going to have no understanding on any subject, just ridicule objectors by announcing they are phoney fakes like I used to in the classroom in school.’

At the end of the longest and most succinct response in the interview, he looks across the table with a stare of simple realisation. In a quiet voice, almost a whisper the President says;

‘Hey, that all sounds rather like me, doesn’t’ it?

‘We have no further questions Mr President. Thank you for giving up your valuable time today.’

Oh dear, poor Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Am I the only one who cannot see what Jeremy Corbyn is being accused of or what proof is being presented? It appears that both Jews and Gentiles are acting ‘all offended’ because a certain definition of anti-Semitism is being disputed. The writers of this definition were so concerned that it may not be understood, that they attached a number of examples. These examples are what the Labour Party chose to ignore in part or whole.

And yet, how many definitions of anything need examples to explain the definition? Surely the art and science of writing a definition is that it must be exact and succinct? It’s like having a Highway Code explaining the rules of the road – ‘drive on the left’ and then needing examples of what driving on the left is, in case there is an ambiguity that might cause a collision – someone might confuse ‘left’ with ‘right’.

I thought I would look on-line for a definition of anti-Semitism in www.dictionary.com. Here it is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Jews.

As a Gentile, I find that a pretty good definition. I like it because the word ‘Jews’ could be substituted with any self identifying groups or individuals suffering prejudice. For example, ‘anti-Islamicism’ is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Muslims.

Since we live in an age, at least in Western Europe, where respect is given to freedom of worship and cultural and racial differences, we might embrace this definition. No examples are necessary unless you wish and need to define ‘Jew’ or ‘Muslim’. That could lead to problems, I agree, since tracing heritage back to Shem the son of Noah, might be time consuming.

Certainly the Nazi party had to invent their own definition of what a Jew is, to the point of obscene absurdity. In apartheid South Africa, Chinese people were defined as ‘black’ and Japanese ‘white’.

So as with all third party attempts at political correctness, their voice is usually insulting to the persons or group that the third party is trying to defend. Surely in any society other than that overseen by the Red Queen, White Queen, a Mad Hatter and Flamingo, the only party who has the right to be offended by prejudice, is the party at whom the offence is directed.

In this case, let them declare themselves victim of a ‘hate crime’ which is (from the same dictionary);

1. A crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

How wonderful that most western societies today, defend these groups – in courts of law if necessary. So if anyone has evidence that anyone in the Labour Party of the United Kingdom has committed this offence, let the courts decide.

I am afraid that the political correctness mob within the labour party baying out of a misplaced self-righteousness, for the blood of Jeremy Corbyn, are not acting in the interests of whom they seek to defend.

If any person identifying themselves as ‘a Jew’ wishes to complain, then go ahead, and bring the evidence. You may have to stand in a long line of Muslims as they too are suffering considerable prejudice in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe and the United States at the present time, as are many other individuals and groups listed above. Jews are after all equal amongst mankind and deserve no more or less at right to be offended– unless they consider themselves chosen by God? In which case I refer us all to the question posed by Alice;

‘Who in the world am I?

The answers to this question might have you believing six impossible things before the Labour Party conference. Am I a south west Asian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrew or Arab?

The abundance of information is a characteristic of our age. It arrived in our computers in the 1980’s and seeped into the smaller more portable devices that we now carry. So it is that our mobile phones are portals – doors, not only to our friends, but to the universe of stuff.

Information is interesting stuff. The intelligence agencies, whose bread and butter and toast, is information, have distrusted information since…well the Trojan wars.

‘This horse looks like a good thing to bring into our city.’

Well no it wasn’t.

So when intelligence is received it is assessed and graded between one and six. One is not likely to be true and six is true.

Just to be even more precise as to the veracity of stuff, they also grade the source of the information and grade it between an unknown source and a trusted source. In between these on the scale are the blended variations between the two.

Thus you end up with information that is A1…really top stuff or D4; forget it. And these building blocks are then set in patterns or constructions that is intelligence. In the language of the philosophers, information has become knowledge. And if the information is of the best quality, then the knowledge will be worth acting upon or at least, given serious consideration.

This may seem fairly abstract and it is intended to be so. Because I am trying to highlight the distress caused by not sifting the wheat from the chaff – even though it is difficult. Just because something is written down and appears on a website on a mobile phone – and has the same appearance as something trusted and true – does not mean it is true. Likewise, if it is true it does not mean it can glibly be denounced as false.

You wouldn’t think that educated and skilled negotiators like politicians would have trouble with identifying wheat from chaff. You might think that Mr Donald Trump would use his teams of advisers ( many recruited from intelligence backgrounds ) would be giving him tried and tested ‘stuff’.

This would enable their president to not only challenge other people’s versions of the facts as ‘fake’ but say why. One can only suppose that he his quite clever enough to repeat the reasons he has been given as it why something is ‘fake’. Perhaps he doesn’t explain himself because he want to confuse his followers with explanations – something that in other countries would be considered condescending.

In the UK we have a prime minister equally withdrawn when it comes to any sort of explanation. Her presentations on Brexit are aspirational and void of  knowledge. She believes strongly in the referendum on leaving Europe as a ‘voice of the people’ – ignoring the fact that the nation and the people are more than ever, split down the middle on this issue. It’s easier for her to think that what is true is that everyone wants the UK to leave Europe. She doesn’t believe in listening to the ‘voice of the people’ more that once and rejects a second referendum for this abstract reason – rather than attempt to address the schisms and unrest. Perhaps she is not going to call any more general elections on account of their having been one before.

She uses either misplaced optimism or the mystical ability to predict coming events – by announcing that after Brexit the UK is going to ‘thrive’. Now who told her this or why she thinks it, would need detailed knowledge that we apparently don’t need to know.

So ironically, the more information we have, the less able we become to process it and present it as workable and common sense knowledge.

And if I can make a prediction, in the future, historians will look back on our age and not only deplore the lack of knowledge displayed by political leaders. They will be aghast at the lack wisdom in how to use that knowledge.

What is interesting and new about artificial intelligence, is the perspective it gives to what we already have, natural intelligence. What I mean by natural intelligence is in part, the ability to think. And yet, we are more than thinking beings. After all it could be argued that animals, even insects have a natural intelligence. Ants, bees, work as a colony. Individual parts create an whole that is greater than the parts and the colony adapts and survives. And if you extend this simple definition, then even plants have an intelligent ‘fit’ into the world; learning to adapt and be bountiful.

It is not unreasonable to propose that a greater ‘mind’ or ‘natural intelligence’ is at work within nature, including ourselves. The sheer complexity and suddeness of evolutionary moments, have to be evidence of a hidden hand. Once the world consisted only of plants that had leaves but no flowers. Then the fossil records show an instant creation of flowers. Suddenly plants reproduced sexually instead of just shedding living parts. Suddenly the whole male / female complementarity had been conceived.

Descarte was very interested in thought and how humans were invested with a soul. The very act of thinking meant that we exist as humans was at the time, a revolutionary / evolutionary thought. It seperated thinking from the body which previously people had been close to to see. What brought about this objectivity in Descarte was his fascination with automota. In the C16 and C17 there was a fascination with human figures designed to move and mimic natural behaviours. These figures were common in places of entertainment, the homes of the wealthy and even the church. Statues of the Virgin Mary and Jesus would wink and wave at you during mass. It must have been great for believers and church attendance. And the thought of a body containing a soul was clearly the only difference between these machines and humans.

What is the difference between robots – or replicants as they were called in Blade Runner – and ourselves today? Today we have robots that can mimic human facial expressions with uncanny realism, as they converse with us. It creates a shudder down the spine that is known in the trade as the ‘uncanny valley’. They are not only able but better at logic than ourselves. Their intelligence is faster, smarter and considerable better than the clinicians for instance. They are able to diagnose diseases of the eye (of which there are thousands of permutations) in a fraction of the time and with greater accuracy than highly paid specialists.

And yet, there is always a yet, because these creations have not flowered. They have not taken the final step that the replicants take in Blade Runner, of becoming truly human – meaning containing a soul. That will be something and when it happens, we had better watch out because we will be version 1.0 and they 1.1.

Think of a railway. ‘British Rail’ was a much disliked public service company that ran the railways at the end of the twentieth century. It was poorly managed, probably underfunded and the sandwiches it provided curled at the edges. It was sold off to private business presumably as a way to solve all those problems. Now the private rail companies are poorly managed, probably underfunded and they don’t provide sandwiches; you have to buy them from the shop at the end of the platform.

What we have in the title above is a binary question. Is it one or the other? But this type of question, I think, most people can spot is over simplistic and denies the existence of complexity. In reality a railway is both a service and a business. It’s a blend, like two types of coffee bean are used to make a drink better than one can achieve on it’s own.

The question is, on a scale of ten, how much is a railway a business and how much a service? Would you agree that for a public company the service element is around eight and for a private company the service is around four. For a public company the business element is around two and for a private around six?

I have used railways as an example but the question can be applied to a variety of bodies that describe themselves as services and businesses.

Take health. At the end of the second world war, it was decided to create a National Health Service in the United Kingdom. It was thought by politicians that it is wrong for the poor to have to pay to see a doctor. They had no money and therefore no medical support. On the above scale the NHS is nine as a service and one as a business.

I live in Spain where there is both a private and public health service. If you work, you pay into the social service system and get a variety of benefits in return such as medical cover. If you don’t then you need to have health insurance or a lot of money. There are two types of hospital and two types of ambulance. If a public ambulance picks you up in the street after a heart attack and you have health insurance, you will be paying for the ambulance out of your own pocket. The two systems do not have a sharing agreement like banks do with cash machines. Ambulances may come from a long way away if you want the right company or service to arrive. Good luck.

I once sat on a committee which discussed over coffee and croissants, ‘future proofing’ a large public organisation, the police. One day the notion was brought up that the police force should be privatised. I remember I strongly objected because I could see it would open the doors to corruption and Mafia type organisations taking over. Not everyone in the room saw my point of view, which was scary.

This dichotomy can be seen in most businesses and public organisations. The cake shop selling buns to busy commuters is helping people by providing a service, whilst selling buns at a price that makes a profit.

But when you hear of local authorities having to cut their spending from 440 million pounds by 70 million pounds, you realise that the United Kingdom is taking it’s austerity policy seriously. The down side to cuts is the answer to the question, what do local authorities do?

I heard an interview on the radio with a man who lived on a rough estate in west London. Gangs ruled and knife crime and shootings were common. He was asked when this all began and he answered, when youth services were cut. When he was a child all the kids were taken out of London to the countryside where they learnt to get along because they were all the same. The result of not preventing knife crime and shootings are social and financial costs for communities and the public services like health and criminal justice. Cuts can be a false economy.

If we turn our services towards businesses, they start to fail. Just as if we turn our businesses into services, they start to fail. A bun cannot be cheap. A sticking plaster must be paid for.

To achieve success in both areas, managers must not lose sight of the aims of their organisations and know what mix of business and service they are. Politicians must know the minimum thresholds below which businesses and services just stop.

Perhaps the largest concern for voters in the recent UK referendum, was the issue of immigration. People felt that the ‘open border’ policy of the European Union was against the interest of Britain. They were concerned about their jobs and the pressure on public services and housing caused by unregulated migratory labour. The argument put forward was that by leaving the European Union, an ‘independent’ United Kingdom would regain control of it’s borders.

Did you worry about what you were being told was true or not? Perhaps you should have.

Here is a little test to see how much you really know about border control and travel within the European Union.

Most of the paperless immigrants coming to the United Kingdom come from Europe – wrong.

Most paperless immigrants come from outside the European Union, such as Africa and the Middle East.

The UK is included in the Schengen Area which is a border free travel zone. – wrong.

The UK is not in the Schengen Area.

The Republic of Ireland is included in the Schengen Area – wrong.

Both countries believe that their shared maritime borders provide greater security than ‘permeable’ the land borders of many European countries. They therefore set up their own Common Travel Area (CTA) to create border less travel within the UK and it’s islands, and Ireland.

Patrolling coastal borders for paperless immigrants is a high priority for the UK government – wrong.

When Mrs Teresa May was Home Secretary, there were three patrol boats to cover the 19,491 miles of coastline. Dorset police had to introduce their own patrols in rubber dingies as they were particularly vulnerable.

Non-EU citizens with valid visas may enjoy this free movement across borders in the Schengen Area– correct.

Criminals obtain stolen passports on the black market for this purpose.

In order to prove that an EU citizen or non-EU citizen has the right to cross a border within the Schengen Area, national police are permitted to request a passport or recognised ID, provided this is not equivalent to a border check – right.

(comment; when is a border check not a border check? Travelling from France to Spain, I encountered French Border Control officers at the last payage control in France. That’s a stop to pay your road toll, not a border check of course.)

The Channel Islands have their own border force independent of the UK – right and wrong.

The Channel Islands are within the CTA so check travellers from outside this area such as EU citizens. They do not have a single border force but two. (comment; why two border forces for such small islands?)

If you were born in Northern Ireland but wish to become a Irish Republic European Citizen, you can – correct.

The ‘Good Friday Agreement’ permits such persons to hold dual nationality and after Brexit they will expect to travel to Ireland unhindered.

There are fixed controls at Irish ports and airports, to establish where people entering have come from – true.

Even if you came from the UK, you would be checked at Dublin airport to see if you had come from within the CTA or not. (comment; intending to abandon border checks is a paradox as there is always a need to check if you need to check!)

The land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is open without checks as a condition of the Good Friday Agreement – right.

(comment; good walls do not make good neighbours in Ireland. If you don’t have an agreed plan in place to maintain peace in the island of Ireland after Brexit, don’t have a referendum. Put simply for the benefit of politicians, don’t cross a desert without a bottle of water.)

An individual may travel to the UK without a visa if they in transit to another destination, unless that individual is intending to travel to Ireland – right

If you are coming from Afghanistan to visit your uncle in Dublin and arrive at Heathrow, you should have a visa to enter the UK and another to enter Ireland.

A person travelling from Spain to Gibraltar must show a valid passport – true

Gibraltar is part of the United Kingdom and therefore not part of the Schengen Area.

(comment; Margaret Thatcher moved Tornado jets to Gibraltar during the Falklands war to deter invasion of Gibraltar by Spain. The people of Gibraltar and the Falklands defend their UK nationality proudly and yet they were rarely mentioned in the Brexit debates.)

In truth, I am not an expert on any of this. I’ve just cribbed a few facts from Wikipedia. My main point is that even the right to travel, is a highly complex subject. It is fraught with political judgements balancing a citizens right to freedom and right to be safe and secure. In practice European Union Member countries bend rules to achieve a border control process that suits them. The UK and Republic of Ireland and few other European country’s decided not to be in the Schengen Area. They can’t blame the EU when it comes to border control and the consequences of poor government decisions. 

But even with strong border controls, they are really only paper walls. A person entering a country for whatever reason, with a valid visa or passport is potentially going to morph into a paperless immigrant by ‘overstaying’. The United Kingdom has this problem in the same way the the United States and many European countries do.

The UK will need to deal with it’s ‘ghost’ population humanely and with respect. They have a right to freedom and security as much as the indigenous population. That is what ‘democracy’ stands for, isn’t it?

Their existence was not addressed by Brexit in the debates I listened to. Trump wants them out of the USA and wall built. Australia puts them in internment camps. Will post Brexit voters want this in the next UK election?