Categories
Environment Politics

The Land in Question – an introduction

indianland_akkuza

“(Finally), in the early morning hours of November 20 (1969), the fourth attempt coalesced and more than 90 Native Americans landed on Alcatraz. The island’s caretaker, Glenn Dodson, who was 1/8 Cherokee, told the landers that they were trespassing, winked, and then showed the landing party to the warden’s house. It was there that the occupiers established their headquarters.” (History Nuggets).

In the mid-eighties Manoel Island was our playground. Wednesdays – days off from the disciplinary jesuit school – were days of adventure and roaming. “We” were a band of urchins from the greater Sliema area spanning from the Gozitan in Paceville to some guys from Fond Ghadir, Tigne and some even from the point where the barrier between Sliema and Gzira becomes murky (Gzira would have been “other people”). Cursorily vetted by our parents it was “kosher” for us to hang out together and hang we did making the land stretching from Pembroke to Valletta our realm that we would shuttle around in on wide skateboards or hitching rides on buses.

Ruins. Desolation. Abandoned buildings. They were the disneyworld and playstation of our day. We did not hunt for pokemons or ride the rollercoasters in some luna park. We went to the crumbling villas on the QuiSiSana waterfront, we rode our skateboards blindly down the lanes of Pembroke from El Alamein to Juno and Tunis. We “explored” the barred gates of Australia Hall and braved the dangers of mad dogs that could be unleashed any moment by caretakers or “residents” of some of the ex-army houses that had been reclaimed thanks to Mintoffian concepts of public good. We were known to have raided the vast desolation that was the Gzira Stadium with it’s jungle like growths, corrugated iron mazes and leftover mementos.

Most of all though we owned Manoel Island. Nobody knew it at that point but a band of young twelve year olds were the actual rightful owners of the island named after a grandmaster. Crossing the bridge onto the island was an act of liberation from the mundane boredoms of everyday life. Once we were past the turnstiles of the old stadium (the one on the island not the one in Gzira) we knew we were back in our land. There were ramparts to be climbed using rudimentary ropes (purchased at the Sunday Monti along with all the army surplus we could find – diligent kids were we), there was an abandoned hospital to be inspected from top to bottom, there were miles of tunnels to be walked through with trepidation and a faulty torch. There was also the actual fort guarded by the usual token army of rabid dogs but nothing was an obstacle to our water war games and camping exploits.

Safety was never the question. Nobody in his right mind would let their kids run the whole gamut of risk-taking actions nowadays. Neither, had they known, would our parents ever have allowed us to roam the land of used syringes, satanist relics and rusted obstacles. The used syringes were the marks of a burgeoning addict community that used the abandoned zone for their needs away from the prying eyes of the public. The “satanist” marks deep in the bowels and tunnels under the fort were also the clues of  life away from the public – a pentagram here, a box of candles there. Some crazed fools doing their trendy thing as some were wont to do in the 80’s – and scaring the living bejeezus out of the teens exploring the tunnels like some a latter day Famous Five minus the ginger beer.

Pembroke, Saint Andrew’s (including Saint George’s Bay), the stretch of land behind the Hilton, Qui-Si-Sana, Tigne’ and Manoel Island. Their time in the eighties was a time of desolate abandonment. Beyond the point where the old ITS school used to stand was a vast stretch of rough land and a bit of asphalt. It was an alternative point of gathering to Ta’ Qali for those football-loving fathers and sons who gathered religiously on Sunday afternoons – the fathers to listen to Serie A on radio and the sons to form a myriad of football matches until the four o’clock siren call to turn back in for a hot shower and supper.

Bit by bit each of these fantastic zones would be imagined away by some architect closed in a room where he “designed” his latest project while surrounded by fake trees ready for the to-scale model that he would pitch to the businessman in whose hands one would find the most flexible politician or party with the least amount of spine possible.  We all know which way Australia Hall went. We have seen the battle for foreshore access around (ex-Hilton) Portomaso. We have sat and watched while the coastal path around Saint George’s Bay becomes a nostalgic memento. We have seen the old Qui-Si-Sana turn into an unrecognizable monster and Tigne point is … well it’s Tigne point.

The coalition of local councillors and activists that have put their foot down on the matter of Manoel Island and access thereto are a welcome breath of fresh air. In this here age of post-truth politics it is becoming harder and harder to get people to understand how much political decisions actually affect their rights – especially when their rights are not so easily tangible. Much of the problems of corruption in today’s politics have not sunk in for many of the voters and citizens – mainly because they can be fobbed off with words and spin.

Access to the foreshore, access to a park, to open air to clean public spaces. Now that is tangible. It is the ideal first building block to recreate a socially active part of the populace that finaly has had enough of being told what can or cannot be done for and with the public good.

Well done Kamp Emerġenza Ambjent. That is a well done that cuts through the ages. It comes from a band of kids whose skateboards scratched the pavements all along the Front, who marked their time with Swatches and whose day was made when they found an extra bit of strong rope that would let them climb that extra bit of metres onto the rampart outside the fort where they would sit and watch the crazy society far way in its rushed madness to an ill-conceived idea of progress.

Grazzi KEA.

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Ban the Bikinini

bikinini_akkuza

 

A French court has given some reprieve to the burkini craze that struck the last part of the crazy summer news. After several French beach-side resorts had banned the wearing of the burkini at the beach things had gotten even hotter with a few incidents of aggression. We had also seen some officers of the law inflict fines on women who insisted on wearing the apparel that many conservatives perceived to be provocative. One aspect of the burkini saga was particularly jarring and confusing. On the one hand those who could be said to be of a liberal frame of mind would argue that it is not up to the state to tell women what they can or cannot wear at the beach. This was not to be an extension of the “public security” debate surrounding the burqa. Here was another facet of the issue – whether the wearing of a burkini is yet another vindication of the rights of self-determination under the western-style package of individual rights.  The counter-argument of course was made that the burkini is yet another extension of the “oppressive” nature of Muslim strictures. Women, the counter-argument goes, should not be forced to wear a burkini or a burqa and therefore should either not wear them or basically not turn up at the beach at all.

I admit that it is all mighty confusing. The whole question of volition lies behind the dilemma. Is it a choice that women make of their own volition or is it something that is being forced upon them by their religion? If it is being forced upon them under the religion they freely choose to adopt is it then up to the state to prohibit the wearing of more modest attire? This is not a question of mores per se. After all we only (only?) have to go back around a hundred years to find that the social regulation of modest attire at the beach was a standard held highly by the majority of the members of society. Even closer to this day and age I have a very clear recollection of groups of women hitting the beaches early in the morning and swimming in full black dress. A religious inclination and interpretation of the concept of modesty was behind it all at the time too.

I’m just back from a holiday in the states during which I had the chance to swim in a couple of hotel pools to cool off the California sun after a day of driving and touring. It was not uncommon to share the pool with men who swam in t-shirt and shorts – modesty? Perhaps. Or maybe, unlike me they were not prepared to wield the sad excuse for a beer belly that I have developed. The thing is that swimming attire IS a question of choice and the state should not be anywhere near regulating what people wear when they take their dip. The whole burkini issue got out of hand – primarily because what people wear to swim is no business of the state but also because discussing the oppression of women by some religion or another has no place in this context.

Watching Maltese persons comment on the burkini ban was another thing altogether. This is a country that still regulates what people can or cannot wear at the beach by law anyway. A woman opting to sunbathe topless in Malta will almost certainly feel the strong arm of the law come down on her. Streaking is also against public mores for the most part and the recent trend of gentlemen taking up nude walking along the sea front does not seem to be forcing any change in the status of illegality that they enjoy.

The reality on the tiny Mediterranean island is such that anybody barking about the burkini ban missed the fact that we are quite content in having the state tell us what we can or cannot wear on our own beaches without as much as batting an eyelid. Add that to your list of ironic things if you are Maltese lovinmalta, I’m sure you’ve got one somewhere.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics Terrorism

Lessons in Fear (after Munich)

fear munich akkuza

It’s a new thing now. Not Pokemon I mean, but this habit to drop “and Munich?” in conversation without as much as a semblance of intent to actually engage about the matter beyond signalling a mutual acknowledgement of the existence of yet another horrible event marking the simultaneous deaths of multiple human beings. “And Munich?” dropped at some part of an exchange is meant to imply a plurality of emotions, feelings and thoughts without actually dealing with them. In post-fact, emotion driven society there is a whole series of “taken as reads” packaged in a two-word reference.

“And Munich?” means that they have stricken again. It means that we are condemned to live another series of days in anxious attention watching the news to hear about how yet another subset of innocent victims had their lives cut short and how the state can do nothing or seems to be unable to do anything about them. “And Munich?” means that the terrorists are winning the war and that all we can do is share a feeling of helplessness as the multi-headed hydra strikes again with wanton abandon and without any recognisable pattern. “And Munich?” definitely implies that the refugee/immigrant problem is out of hand and that whether we like it or not it must be stopped. “And Munich?” includes the sentiment that now even Merkel’s Germany is no longer safe from gun or truck wielding maniacs so why should we be safe? “And Munich?” insinuates that we are living under constant siege and in constant fear and that nothing seems to be able to save us.

Therein lies the problem. Social discourse prefers not to engage but rather to wallow in emotional dysfunctionalism. There is no effort to define beyond the effortless generalisations and assumed truisms that sweep everyone and everything under the same carpet and into the same media-wrapped boxes of cliches. Munich showed us the direction in which we are moving when it comes to fear-based social reasoning.

The first clues came with the breaking news. “Shooting in Munich” did not need any further elaboration. We, and when I say we I mean the global media village’s spectators, were already braced for the worst. A series of automated events were expected to be put into place. “The escalation”, “the police reaction”, “the heroes on scene”, “the vindication”, “the first amateur videos and reports”, “the rise in number of reported victims”, “the stand off”, “the resolution”, “the global political condemnation”, ” the solidarity and mourning” and of course “je suis Munich”. All these steps were in place in our collective minds once the our medium of choice tweeted us the breaking news that there had been a new “Shooting in Munich”.

Then came the early analysis as the events continued to unroll before our eyes. Munich Police stated that since a man had wielded a gun in public this had to be treated as a terrorist attack in order to mobilise the maximum resources to counter its effects. It was an interesting honest statement at a very early stage. As far as I can recall it is the first time that while we had an “attack” in progress we were given direct access to the security protocols of the nation in question. The official reaction is, rightly I add, tuned to assume that we are dealing with a terrorist of the organised (ISIL) type and then question that assumption later. The reasoning is clear and pragmatic – in the worst case scenario the security forces are right and they have all the means to deal with the issue. In the best case the attack is not really a terrorist attack but one that seems to be so due to the circumstances and still all means have been deployed to minimise the damage.

It turns out that the Iranian born 18-year old who went on a shooting spree in a shopping district of Germany’s third largest city was actually emulating a Norwegian far-right madman who had gone on a shooting spree among a group of political youths on an holiday island in Norway. The Iranian was more Breivik and less Daesh. Yet we would only find that out over 24 hours after the events. As it turns out, the Munich police deployment of security measures – blockdown on transport, curfew, assumption of other shooters involved in the attack – may have saved more lives and contained the damage. Similarly, the social mindset as the events unfolded demonstrated a “trained” mentality among the general public. Twitter hashtags offered support and shelter to anyone stranded in the potential zone of carnage, Facebook triggered a fine-tuned function that helped people show that they are safe and sound, the media (or most of it) knew better than to defy police instructions not to share videos and images at the peak of the crisis.

So what lessons do we draw from the Munich attack? Early the next morning I put the following post on facebook:

One of them is as old as the word itself: it takes FEAR and TERROR to make a TERRORIST. Not ISIL, not an organised network of sharpshooting ideological maniacs, not immigrants who got in under the radar with intent to kill, not far right extremists with an agenda. Those are all masks and labels that hide the real danger – misfits, renegades, angry individuals who will prey on the new mindset of fear. One man with a gun is no longer a criminal – he is a terrorist (hasn’t crime always spread terror?) and the third largest city in Germany is locked down.  The biggest cause of fear is lack of knowledge. Today’s society needs new ways of responding to these realities. Part of that development lies in understanding how and why all this is happening.

I do believe that is our biggest lesson yet. We have come to realise that due to a combination of circumstances that include the immediacy of breaking news and coverage we are a society that easily falls prey to fear and helplessness. Crimes and criminals that involve deaths and victims are no longer to be treated “simply” as such but as part of a wider bigger problem that is holding all of society at ransom. the new crime of “terrorism” is like nothing that we have ever seen before – mainly BECAUSE of the immediacy of the breaking news when the situation is no longer limited to the immediate closeness of wherever the events unfold but involves a whole global community. This sense of communal fear and helplessness was previously not achievable by similar groups as ISIL operating on the basis of terror and fear – the IRA, the Brigate Rosse, Bader Meinhoff, the PLO.

This psychological hostage situation is exacerbated because all the while society will carry on with its own agenda and there will unfortunately always be the misfits, the renegades and the angry individuals who will commit crimes that would in all other circumstances not qualify for the “terrorist” moniker but that will henceforth contribute to the generation of mass hysteria and uncertainty.  It is important for all of society to take time and understand such acts – in order not only to be in a position to better react to them in the future but also to try, as far as possible to avoid them ever happening.

The best way to fight fear is with knowledge.

Categories
Politics Values

Morning-after: Muscat does a Farage

muscat_farage

Malta cannot stop a company from importing a morning-after contraceptive pill that has EU approval, Joseph Muscat said this evening. Speaking at one of the meetings in the Gvern li Jisma series, the Prime Minister said he was not in a position to make moral statements, but to speak to the experts. In this case, the expert was the Medicines’ Authority, whose reply had actually surprised him, Dr Muscat said.

Then people actually wonder why Joseph Muscat gets compared to Nigel Farage. Here’s why. On the contraception pill our Prime Minister practically implied that Malta would be obliged by the EU to sell the “morning-after” pill over the counter (I don’t think anybody would be obliged to import a pill if the intention were not to sell it).

Using the EU as a monster that forces states to do what they do not want to do in their sovereign competencies is exactly what Farage did.

The truth is that following a recommendation by the European Medicines Agency (based in the UK incidentally) in 2014, the European Commission issued a decision in 2015 switching the status of two morning after pills from prescription to non-prescription. This decision DOES NOT LEGALLY BIND member states and in fact Malta still neither registers nor sells such pills. Countries such as Italy have for some time attached a further condition before allowing over the counter sale (pregnancy test). (source)

Switching the debate to whether the EU obliges Malta to decide on the matter is tantamount to washing ones hands of the decision. This is not the kind of decision making that one would expect from a progressive and pro-Europeanist Prime Minister.

“In November 2014, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended a change in classification status from prescription to non-prescription for UPA ECPs, meaning that the drug could be obtained without a prescription in the EU. Following the EMA´s assessment, in January 2015, the European Commission issued an implementing decision that UPA ECPs should be available without a prescription, amending the marketing authorisation granted in 2009 for UPA ECPs.

While the European Commission’s decision is not legally binding and does not create new obligations to the EU Member States with regards to EC accessibility, in most EU countries, the decision is being followed, and UPA ECPs are available directly in the pharmacies or are in the process of becoming available. At the end of November 2015, the situation regarding ECPs in the EU was the following:

UPA ECPs are available without prescription in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Age restrictions have been set in at least 3 countries: Croatia and Italy (for women younger than 18) and Poland (for women younger than 15).

In the Baltic subregion, the new marketing authorisation is being processed in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and UPA ECPs are expected to be available by 2016.

In Hungary, in January 2015, the government decided that because of patient safety considerations, it will continue to require prescriptions for all types of EC.

In Malta, LNG ECPs and UPA ECPs are not registered or available.

LNG ECPs remain a prescription drug in Hungary and Poland. In Croatia and Italy since October 2015, at least one brand of LNG ECPs is registered as prescription- free products.”

The decision of whether the morning after pill is available over the counter remains a national prerogative. It is a decision that must be taken at a national level. Sure, it must be informed by the EU Commission decision recommending over-the counter sales that is the result of a recommendation by a specialised agency but this does not undermine the fact that it is ultimately a national decision of which our government cannot wash its hands.

Washing his hands and blaming the EU monster is dishonest and untruthful to begin with. It also unmasks the real level of commitment that Muscat has both to progressive and Europeanist ideas.

We need more fact-based politics and less untruths. Otherwise we might as well have a comedian like Farage running our country irresponsibly.

 

ADDENDUM (from Facebook):

James Debono asks:

I am no expert on importation of medicines and laws regulating them. On a political level it would be wiser not shift buck to EUon such matters and assume responsibility. That is the non technical argument. I say this cause am completely in favour of morning after and wary of shifting arguments to EU on sensitive issues. So I can see your political point. That said the pill is available in all EU countries with differences being on need of prescription etc. I am under impression that local medicines authority has to authorize it at some point. My technical question is whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so (and thus expose themselves to a legal challenge) Does such a step (to ban this particular brand of morning after pill) require the approval of new legislation to justify any decision to ban it locally (and thus not open state to legal challenge)? So technically muscat seems to be saying we are not going out of the way to stop this pill on irrational grounds (while politically passing buck on single market)?

Thank you James Debono. Let me begin by stating that my post was not a position on whether the pill should or should not be available. I was simply stating that the buck should not be passed onto the EU when it is evidently not the case.

I will try to answer your question as best as I can. First of all the issue of marketing and sale of Medicines is a special field of EU law that in some cases requires special implementation of the general principles of free movement of goods. IN essence the idea is to create a single market insofar as medicinal products are concerned but the basic directive also recognises differences in MSs (member states) on certain issues.

The general principle is that a registered product should be marketable in all the EU. That is when an EU-wide license is issued. In other cases MS specific authorities (NCA’s) have the power to issue or refuse national licenses. This occurs for different reasons all of which boil down to public policy.

It is important to realise that the European Medicine’s Agency is responsible for scientific research and study of all products. All EU states benefit from the investment made by a centralised agency to vet medicincal products and this obviously avoids replication over 28 MSs.

Now for the national agency. They are entitled to refuse to license certain products including morning after pills.

You should be looking at Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Particularly its article 4(4) which states: “This Directive shall not affect the application of national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of medicinal products as contraceptives or abortifacients. The Member States shall communicate the national legislation concerned to the Commission.”

So in answer to your question: “whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so?” The answer is yes since the actual point is that local autorithies cannot be obliged to license certain categories of drugs/medicines.

Link to the Directive.

Link to the Commission decision advising Member States to allow over the counter prescription.

Additional reading.

Categories
Brexit Politics

Be Deutsch, Fcuk Farsons

be deutsch

Jan Böhmermann  hit the international news by offending Turkey’s Erdogan. The Turkish leader had requested that Angela Merkel prosecute Böhmermann under an outdated German law for having dared make fun of him in public. Merkel acquiesced causing widespread indignation among the anti-establishment.

Writing on Twitter addressing the Federal Minister of the Chancellery,  Böhmermann stated “I would like to live in a country where the exploration of the limits of satire is allowed, desired and the subject of a civil society debate”. He wouldn’t ask for help, but desired to plead for “considering my artistic approach and my position, even if it is contentious”, Böhmermann added. In Norway and in the Netherlands planned were announced to abolish similar laws to the German one that punished insulting foreign leaders. 

A YouGov poll revealed on 12 April, that a majority of the Germans supported Böhmermann’s position. 48 percent of the pollees found the poem appropriate, 29 percent view it as undue. A great majority (66 percent) opposed the deletion of the poem on the ZDF website as well as Merkel’s criticism of the poem as “intentionally hurtful” (68 percent). Only 15 percent support a criminal investigation, 77 percent objected it. In the meantime, more than 240,000 people signed a petition for Böhmermann at Change.org. A further poll by Infratest dimap for the German ARD broadcaster published on 17 April showed that 65 percent of the Germans considered Merkel’s decision to allow criminal proceedings against Böhmermann as “wrong”, 28 percent supported it. Also Merkel’s personal popularity fell, 45 percent were satisfied with her work, while 56 percent were dissatisfied, an all-time low for her in this legislative period.

In case you had missed poem, in it Böhmermann, among other things, called Erdoğan “the man who beats girls”, and said that he loved to “fuck goats and suppress minorities, kick Kurds, hit Christians, and watch child pornography.” Much of the rest of the poem is devoted to associating Erdoğan with various less accepted forms of sexuality. Let’s just say that he might have stopped short of jellyfish and vaginal labia but one man’s trash is another man’s treasure I guess.

What were the consequences for Böhmermann? “On 12 April it was reported that Böhmermann is under police protection, because he was threatened by supporters of Erdoğan. The filming of upcoming editions of Neo Magazin Royale were suspended until May 2016 due to “massive media reporting and the focus on the programme and the presenter”. Böhmermann had also temporarily suspended his radio show Sanft & Sorgfältig on Sundays and was not present at the Grimme-Preis (Grimme Awards), where he was awarded for his Varoufakis video.” (Wikipedia)

It’s not just Glenn Bedingfield and (Super) One TV and Farsons then. So it must be ok, musn’t it? Well. Not really no. It is not ok. I still believe that Merkel was obliged to apply the law if it existed and order the prosecution of Böhmermann under that law. What happens next though is of paramount importance. The court of law of a western democracy with the set of values of a western democracy is being called upon to decide whether a satrist and public commentator of political matters can be allowed to go along with his work. The sanity of the rule of law requires that this process occurs because it defines what our society is all about – beyond the yelling of the social media. Unlike Bedingfield and One TV and Farsons, this matter would be decided in a court of law.

On the 16th of July a Hamburg regional court upheld the injunction prohibiting the reading of the offensive poem in public places however, more importantly, the court said that “Böhmermann’s “libelous poem,” was “undoubtedly” a work of satire and art, adding that due to his prominent political position, Erdogan must be prepared to put up with strong criticism.

Yesterday Böhmermann was at it again. His target? Boris Johnson. He uploaded the speech in which the spineless blonde agitator gave up on the Tory leadership race onto Pornhub – a popular pornographic video site. He titled the video “Dumb British Blonde Fucks 15 million people again”. So much for moderation. Ironically, earlier this year, Johnson won a contest held by the Spectator (a magazine that he once edited) that had called for poems offending Erdogan in solidarity with Böhmermann.

“If somebody wants to make a joke about the love that flowers between the Turkish president and a goat, he should be able to do so, in any European country, including Turkey,” Johnson said. Talking about the prize, Spectator editor Murray said: “Finest thing possible that in the UK, in Great Britain, in 2016 you can award a prize to a political leader for insulting a despot in Ankara, while in Germany in 2016, a political leader tries to slam people up in prison,” he said, commenting on his decision to turn a blind eye to flaws in the poem for the sake of delivering a political message.

But is Germany much worse off than Britain? The Brexit vote and the reasons why Leave won leave much questions hanging around this. Which of the two embodies the most European values? Which of the two embraces the differences of the continent and the project of building a Union of strong individuals living freely ? Well who better than the very Böhmermann to give us an answer? Warning… the words of this video might not be too pleasing to the ears. Particularly, the invitation to “Read Kant you cunt” must not be taken too literally. Kant can be quite disturbing you know.

 

Categories
Brexit Mediawatch

Behind Brexit

We’re still sitting back and processing the news. Right now there is a shit-storm of cliches being bandied about the place like there is no tomorrow. Post-fact politics reigns supreme and social media banter has definitely taken the upper hand over reasoned discourse. A referendum result fuelled by misinformation could only have a mega-Babel as its unreasonable direct heir. The words “democracy” and “democratic” continue to be thrown about and misused with alarming simplicity and we are still firmly situated in the No Brain’s Land of “Knee-jerk reaction”.

While the dust continues to settle I will try to point out some interesting articles in the press and reviews that might be part of a wider picture relating to the demos, sovereignties and peoples of Europe. My guess is that more often than not we will find that in the globalized world nothing is ever too far apart as not to be intricately linked and have direct consequences on a myriad other matters.

Let us begin with this article from the Guardian about the performance of Brexiter Cummings before the Treasury select Committee. Here’s my favourite bit:

No, he couldn’t confirm whether a Vote Leave advert had been deliberately designed to look like an NHS brochure. No, he couldn’t confirm Britain was in the single market, because we definitely weren’t even though we definitely were. No he couldn’t confirm why Vote Leave was claiming that intra EU trade had fallen since 1999 when official figures showed it had actually gone up by 39%.

So it went on. No, he couldn’t confirm when Vote Leave would make the macro-economic case for Brexit because these figures were obviously top secret and if he were to make them public then they wouldn’t be secret any more. No, he couldn’t name the Goldman Sachs operatives who had bribed everyone in Brussels, because he’d be killed. No, he couldn’t name any of of the umpteen ambassadors who had told him at secret trysts that they really hated the EU because if he did they would all just say he was crazy.

Read the full article here.