This website is primarily designed to support my writing but I am also human and I have opinions that range over a wide area so I hope you'll consider indulging me as I talk about something that has been taking up a great deal of my time recently, Britain's impending withdrawal from the European Union colloquially referred to as Brexit.
This website is primarily designed to support my writing but I am also
human and I have opinions that range over a wide area so I hope you'll
consider indulging me as I talk about something that has been taking up
a great deal of my time recently, Britain's impending withdrawal from
the European Union colloquially referred to as Brexit.
I was one of the 48% of those who voted to Remain and, though I sometimes have despaired of some of the things said by those of the EU side, I am still a Remainer. I want to stress that I am, in political and economic terms, a relative "know nothing" yet, like everyone else who voted, I was asked to become a politician, a diplomat and an economic specialist for one day. Of course, I, like most others, couldn't become that but I did do some research and, very briefly, I voted remain for the following reasons:
Last week, following a number of standard mails to my MP (Helen
Whately), I received the following email:
Thank you for contacting me about the campaign for a second referendum on the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
We have already had a people's vote on the EU on 23 June 2016, in which a majority voted to leave. It is right that the Government respects this decision and is taking us out of the EU. I am backing the Prime Minister to get on with the job and secure a good deal to take us out of the EU; a deal which honours the referendum result by taking us out of the EU's institutions while protecting jobs and the economy. I intend to vote for a future relationship along these lines.
You raised concerns about whether people knew what they were voting for. Before the 2016 referendum, the Government sent out a leaflet to all households which set out the risks and consequences of exiting the EU. I am satisfied that people knew what a vote to leave meant, and so I don't support rerunning the referendum on these grounds.
I appreciate that you will find this disappointing, however I view my role as an MP to make sure that leaving the EU works for the constituency and the country. That's why I'm focussing on the task ahead of us, rather than revisiting the arguments of 2016.
I hope that this response is useful, and if there is anything further you think I can do to help, please do not hesitate to get back in touch.
Being me, of course, I wasn't satisfied with that response and responded as follows:
Thank you for your recent email, as you might expect I have a number of comments.
I am, of course, well aware that we have already had a vote on the issue of EU membership but to simply state the obvious ("We have already had a people's vote on the EU on 23 June 2016, in which a majority voted to leave. It is right that the Government respects this decision and is taking us out of the EU.") raises a number of issues.
Firstly, as I am sure you are aware, all British referendums are advisory in legal terms. Secondly, your statement appears little more than a politicised version of the Leaver's "you lost, get over it" which is pretty insulting on every level. Thirdly, I am forced to wonder if the people of Swale elected you to simply follow the dictates of your party (as every response I've had from you implies you do) or to act in their, and the nation's, best interests. Fourthly, had the suffragettes done the same back in the nineteenth century when their demands for the vote were first rejected, women would not have the vote now and, were we to consider that from a point even further back in time, I wonder if only land-owning gentry would have the vote.
Two years of recession, a 500% increase in casual racism, a spiralling pound, companies that are moving to the EU and others planning to do so in addition to some fairly dire warnings (including up to 800,000 job losses and the possible loss of up to £6000 per family per year). Sales at Jaguar Land Rover have fallen sharply with Brexit one of the factors blamed by the company for the sales fall and the CEO outspoken on the risks to the car industry posed by it. Manufacturing has also had its worst month since the EU referendum with Brexit identified as a significant factor. Law Enforcement Chiefs have warned that the UK will become a less safe place in the event of a no-deal Brexit due to the loss of shared EU information could even lead to some overseas criminals deliberately moving to the UK to avoid arrest. Research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies indicates Brexit will put male manual workers in the UK (those most likely to have voted for it) at "greatest risk".
In short, there is no known Brexit scenario that will give Britain as good a deal as we currently have and, as such, I am curious how you feel any deal that the current administration might make will protect jobs and the economy. The cynical side of me suggests one answer might be that it's "Project Fear", more fear mongering from the Vote Leave campaign (those dratted experts they told us not to pay any mind to)? Despite the "assurances" you have given, it seems clear that Brexit is anything but in our best interests.
You mention the "good deal" the Prime Minister is trying (and clearly struggling) to get yet you may recall some of the things your colleagues have said about the UK and the EU (I list some of them below)? Perhaps your idea of a "good deal" is somewhat different to mine? With that in mind and the difficulties the government has had securing such an "easy" deal, I remain somewhat mystified as to how a deal that takes us out of the European Union (and possibly out of the Customs Union and Single Market) will protect jobs and the economy better than one that keeps us in especially since no one in the current administration can actually agree on what "Leave" actually means. Perhaps you could clarify that seemingly simple question?
Yes, I am aware of the leaflet that was sent round but there was also material sent round by the various campaigns. I read the leaflet, of course, it was perhaps the only legible aspect of the government's pre-referendum campaign however it's worth pointing out that it was somewhat barebones and nowhere near as informative as the one sent round for the 1975 referendum. I suspect that, as someone who actually read, understood and further researched the material in the booklet, I was in the minority. Given that the most searched term on Google post-referendum was, "What is the EU?" I strongly suspect that most did not read it at all, hardly the kind of search one might expect an informed electorate if they actually understood what they were voting for. But deal or no deal, we're going to be OK because we can operate under WTO trading rules, isn't that right? Is it right even though there are something like 7 countries that are prepared to object to our entry into the WTO system, our current membership being via the EU.
Then there are the lies that were told to the electorate pre/post-referendum, lies I am smart enough not to believe without first checking. Here are a few examples I'm sure are familiar to you:
Recent news reports are highlighting that
fact that the Leave Campaign cheated and lied with The National Crime
Agency investigating allegations of multiple criminal offences by
Arron Banks. That has prompted, quite rightly in my opinion, calls
from some MPs for the process of departing the European Union to be
suspended since the Electoral Commission has said there are reasonable
grounds to suspect Banks was "not the true source" of £8m in funding
to the Leave.EU campaign.
Leavers argue that the government promised a referendum that would be a once-in-a-lifetime decision, that it would implement whatever the majority voted for and that to break that promise would be a gross betrayal of democracy but to take that stance assumes that what we were told was true and morally above reproach. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why is it not acceptable to break the Brexit democratic promise when it IS acceptable for the Leave campaign to make, and get away with making, all kinds of undeliverable promises such as £350 million extra per week for the NHS? The Brexit that we're likely to get will be an awfully long way from that promised by the Leave Campaign so I'm sure you'll understand my scepticism with respect to your claim that people knew what a vote to leave meant. A good metaphor might be that of buying a house; if you made an offer on a house and then the survey finds that it's full of damp and dry rot, you would be absolutely within your right to withdraw your offer and stay put. Should the same principle not apply to Brexit?
One point your response fails to consider is the demographics of the vote, that the younger half of the population (those likely to be most negatively affected by Brexit) tended heavily towards Remain which suggests the whole exercise may be pointless as they are likely to seek to re-join the EU and the deal will be nowhere near as good as our current one. As a father of two young women, new voters strongly opposed to Brexit, they (like their fellows) have said they will neither forgive those who take them out of Europe which is something those seek longevity in the world of politics should, perhaps, consider.
We live in a new, highly technological world, a world where the media coverage is, at best, questionable. We have a media system that seems comfortable with the obviously ludicrous idea that the informed views of industry experts such as the CEOs of Jaguar or Nissan are somehow "balanced" by those of relative know-nothings such as Nadine Dorries. And the views of Ms Dorries conflict with the views of others in the current administration so much so that one might be tempted to suggest they really don't know as much as they claim to. The Tory Party seems to be ripping itself to pieces with its internal squabbles which, under any other circumstances, could be considered funny but as it stands it's little more than pathetic however it leads me to an important question. Should you not, as our representative in Parliament with something presumed to be more than the average person's understanding of external factors affecting the UK be considering such things carefully and, if necessary, be willing to put the good of the nation ahead of your party's pathetic internal squabbles? Coming from a scientific, evidence led, background I find it perplexing and rather worrying that my representative in Parliament seems only willing to consider following her party's lead with something suspiciously like unquestioning loyalty. Actions resulting from the referendum are viewed as democracy in action but democracy cannot truly exist without good, honest information and politicians that are willing to act responsibly for the good of all in their nation and not simply follow their own interests or the dictates of a specific party.
However, to sum up, it is clear that the leave campaign cheated and lied, it is clear that Brexit cannot supply us with a deal as good as the one we currently have and that any proposed benefits are accepted largely on faith, it is clear that the electorate was largely ignorant and it is clear that we need an informed referendum, a People's Vote.
My best guess is that Mrs Whately won't reply since my email was fairly long but I wait to see if I will be proved right.
I'd like to talk about science and science fiction as the two, I feel, are inextricably linked. As a science adherent I have the kind of science knowledge I believe most should have but unfortunately don't; it wasn't always that way.
As a teenager, though a devotee of science fiction for several years, I considered myself reasonably open-minded about other genres, and talked enthusiastically about my love of reading, of science fiction and the educational value contained within much of it. Despite some disparaging views hinting that it was somehow unworthy, science fiction and fantasy have become extremely popular in written form as well as in film and TV which has made such attitudes harder to justify. Though science fiction remains my favourite genre I have branched out towards thrillers, horror, comedy, fantasy and occasional other genres and, since I started writing, I have actively pursued such interests on the basis that alternate genres can only serve to improve my writing.
To me, the most astounding characteristic of science fiction is its ability to educate and to expand the mind, something I assume is true of other genres. When I started reading science fiction aged thirteen the golden age of science fiction was winding down and new authors were coming onto the scene. I was reading books by the acknowledge masters of science fiction; authors that (even today) are held in high regard by readers and writers alike, authors like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Silverberg, Bradbury and so on. They educated me, taught me about gravity, evolution, physics and generally whet my appetite for science. Indeed, I'd go as far as to suggest that if it hadn’t been for science fiction I might not be as enthused about science as I am and I might not love computers as much as I do. That has given me some very particular views with respect to science fiction.
As a science fiction writer, it seems to me that one has to have a good grasp of what is or is not possible, not necessarily now but in the future; more than that, it has to be reasonable. To give an example of this, it might be that in the future we will develop the power of alchemy that will allow us to convert base metals into gold. I'll grant that such might be possible somewhere in our future but we can't do it now and it seems more than a little "far-fetched" to advance that we will be able to. For a writer, they take the risk that their novel will end up as fantasy rather than science fiction. Still, with sufficient thought and a good explanation, it can be done. In the future we may be able to travel to other star systems, something we also can't do now in any realistic sense, but a reasonable extrapolation of what we currently know implies there is a good chance we might someday reach such distant places. A more common claim, implied within film and TV, is that there will be war in space, that pilots will be able to climb into fighter craft and fly them, wheeling and spiralling, like conventional planes through space, something that appears extremely unlikely. Such manoeuvres require the application of aerodynamic principles against an atmosphere and, in space, there's no appreciable atmosphere. In such environments we would likely be required to slow down and accelerate in the opposite direction though, since such movement is relative, it will also be possible to appear to accelerate towards another craft whilst actually moving rapidly backwards. On the plus side, such fighters might be able to pull some very cool manoeuvres like turning backwards, whilst moving forwards at potentially very high speeds, to fire on the craft harrying from the rear.
But what, exactly, is science and the scientific method? Science is a way of thinking about the universe and a database of knowledge. It is a methodology dictating that any interpretations based within the scientific knowledge base should be necessarily derived from properly derived data. A scientific theory, not to be confused with the common usage of the word where it equates to a "good idea", "a wizard wheeze" or "a guess", is an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments which repeatedly observe natural processes. A scientific law, despite grandiose naming something "less" than a theory, is a generalised description of an ideal or isolated system and effectively dictates the perfect behaviour of something.
All scientific explanations are based on broad generalisations of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. All are falsifiable which essentially means it must be possible to conceive of an observation which would invalidate it. All are verifiable, meaning it must be possible for others to verify the results (typically by peer-review) using either the same experimental techniques or different ones. And, finally, all scientific explanations must be tentative meaning that no scientific explanation can be considered absolute regardless of how much it may seem to be at times. In this sense, science is best viewed as a self-correcting attempt to understand the observable universe and can be viewed as our best current explanation of the universe we observe around us.
So how does that affect the science fiction writer? A story is a complicated beast and it is important that a plot makes sense, that the characters are believable and that in a general sense the whole hangs together i.e. it is believable. For science fiction, a story's believability hinges on science, on the science being accurate or a reasonable extrapolation of known science. Of course, "reasonableness" in science fiction is something for the reader to decide and depends on a number of factors such as how far in the future it is set, whether it is set in an alternative history/dimension or indeed whether it is set in an Earthly scenario at all. Such constraints affect contemporary writing as well; if a savage with no real idea what an aircraft was or how it flies was, later in the story, to take control of an airliner when its pilot was somehow incapacitated, suspending one's disbelief might be challenging.
Science fiction requires you to suspend your disbelief and, whilst nothing says you can't explore your weirder ideas, all I ask (as a reader) is that you (the author) explain that scenario, tell me what its rules are and from that point on, stick to them.
Thanks for reading.
J. C. Rocks (Author: "The Abyssal Void War" series)
"Tales of the High Avenging Angel: #1-3" a dark science fiction tale by Dietmar Arthur Wehr.
Former star pilot, Hoch Racheengel, the "High Avenging Angel" is a brave attempt by the author to be original but it is only partially successful. Set in a world the author calls "space noir", an idea based on the old cinematic idea of "film noir" the book has a fair degree of action and violence with stories ranging across Earth and several other systems. The tales all followed the same basic outline overused convenient high-tech devices leading to a lack of believability and suspense. Although I found the book readable I felt it a shame it couldn't have been more adventurous and interesting. A good try that failed to meet its potential.
My all-time favourite film, a heady mix of science-fiction and fantasy, James Cameron's "Avatar" combines aspects of "Dances With Wolves", "Titanic", "The Last Samurai" in a heady mix of science, fantasy and romance. As he often does, Cameron takes a swipe at the industrial excesses of corporate commercialism, with human/corporate greed clashing with the natives of a distant world. Credited as the one which kickstarted modern 3D film technology, "Avatar" set the 3D bar and, in many ways, has a lot to answer for.
I was a huge fan of Marvel's "Iron Man" film featuring Robert Downey jnr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man and, thought it was not as good, I still liked its immediate sequel. "Avengers Assemble", with Downey's third outing as Iron Man, represented perhaps the very best a super hero film could offer. The "Iron Man" brand was so well established that I simply knew that a third film, "Iron Man 3" (Iron Man's fourth outing), had to be good because no one on Earth could possibly screw it up ... enter Shane Black!
After far too long, my first book has been published and is available in various eBook formats. eBooks can be bought from Amazon globally, Apple etc. and the paperback version from my publisher, Fiction4All. Signed copies can be obtained directly from me which, for the UK at least, won't cost you anything more except some additional postage.
Ten years ago, Tuesday 30th October 2007, my oldest brother Paul was interred after taking GHB a well-known recreational and date rape drug. Unfortunately, he had also been drinking heavily and once he took the drug I guess his body just stopped.Paul Posing
The funeral was humanist and was extremely well handled by the celebrant, showing respect to those of faiths other than my own (which happens to be none) and I was one of those who spoke.
So, I have finally resubmitted my first book having made a number of changes. There's a new "prologue" chapter designed to create a high-action opening sequence, simplified sub-headings for all chapters to provide a clear location and date, more conversation and other changes. I now believe that the book flows better and addresses some of the concerns my publisher raised. The book is now some forty-two chapters i.e. some 87,000 words of actual story so now all I have to do is wait and wonder what on Earth am I going to call my website when I finally publish?
With stunning graphics and a stellar cast "Passengers" (2016) is a film that should have blown us away but instead it received heavy criticism but was that criticism as deserved as some would have us believe? I received a copy on Blu-ray for my birthday so I set about finding out if I agreed with the film's critics. Everyone knows it's rare for Hollywood to get it right in terms of the science and this film is no exception but, since just about every other film is the same, I feel it's unfair to unduly criticise it for it. And besides, "Passengers" is not really a science fiction film any more than "Titanic" is a film about a ship hitting an iceberg, it's a romance.
Chris Prat, Jennifer Lawrence, Laurence Fishburne and, my favourite, Martin Sheen deliver excellent performances and the film certainly doesn't lack for action. The music was good throughout and only spoiled when it accompanied the closing credits, a jarring track I assume was intended to boost the film through the music charts.
In the end, I felt most of the criticisms levelled at the film were explained within it and despite all the criticisms I could level at the film's science, I still enjoyed it perhaps because of the chemistry between the actors.
A book with moments of extreme violence, but not pointless, violence and one that I think is very much worth a read. It opens with a brutal murder, the victim gruesomely, yet artistically, displayed which leads both the lead detective and a reporter to the conclusion that the murder was likely to be one of a series, the murderer a serial killer. In writing this book, the author has woven a story around complex characters with believable personal motivations using good dialogue as well as nail biting, harrowing and gripping scenes. Definitely a book worth a read.