Jamie's Italian Visit

To respond to an invite from Younger Boy and his pregnant wife for a meal, mainly in celebration of his mother's birthday. I get to go along as a passenger! Jamie's Italian was the chosen venue; not going out much, we have no experience of this establishment and the youngsters not much either I think. Sitting outside, waiting to meet up with our hosts the overriding impression, through the full length windows was of a canteen. People sitting in the window would have relied on the forebearance and goodwill of those behind, to rise. Younger boy arrives and we enter, waiting 5 minutes or so for front of house to return to their station. This allowed a broader view into the room and confirmed that, unless you removed the bar and constricted the kitchen space, you couldn't fit another chair in. The decor semi-industrial with cable trays and air conditioning ducting visible in the naked ceiling. Shown to our fixed table and banquettes, we decided who goes where. Hint to the establishment; the success of fixed bench seating relies on the smooth surface of the seating making a glide across easy. Making the seat ribbed is no help at all. After an inelegant scramble we were in. Ambience gets 6/10. It was a little crowded (the place was very busy) but we were comfortable at the side of the room amd I quite liked the lighting. The piped music added nothing, but the staff seemed to like it. Ah yes, the staff. Now I like the ebullient, matey, cheeky-chap character that is Jamie Oliver on the telly. I am less sure about a waitress arriving with bon mots and a level 7 on the puppy excitement scale. A pleasant, professional manner would seem appropriate and if the clients bounce back with some amusing repartee, which is then responded to with wit and charm, would be the sign of an excellent, on the ball employee of a competent and thoughtful establishment. Now look, before this seems like a massive negative, let me give you the staff score now: 10/10. The service was efficient and attentive, the staff constantly busy. That the food delivery was slowish was due to the kitchen it would seem. We arrived at 7:30 and left at 10:20: we certainly were not hurried out. The food. This is the primary reason for dining, admitting good company is also a major contributor, however, the restaurant cannot be responsible for that so cannot be criticised. Our company was the best, so we only need consider our choices of plate. Well I say plate, my excited boy related that he had had their famous 'plank' starter so ordered that for us. I wasn't intending on having a starter so was not concerned with the selection. This spread of meats and cheeses, basically, can be for two or more persons. The waitress suggested a two person plank would probably do as a starter for four, many found it so. This was a good call on her part as, at best only three were likely to participate. It was elevated by the simple measure of three tins of Ragu from the store cupboard being placed on the table to rest the plank on, these presumably saving the kitchen the drag of having to make a tomato sauce themselves. I love mozarella, but it came smeared with chilli or something, so I gave it a miss. The girls dominated the bread elements, but I did try a proferred nacho. These we were told were Jamie's version; deep fried ravioli of mozarella and aged pecorino, resting in their bowl in chilli jam. Quite why you would go to the trouble of deep frying something, only to deliver it soggy is beyond me, but I had no idea at the time what was in the parcel (the menu's had been taken so I couldn't check) either. The chilli jam didn't enhance the whole either by moisture or taste, it made it quite unpleasant. Offered the tin of pork scratchings I went to pluck one, but instead got a tiny crust. Eating it, I got a nice crunch and then a lovely flood of toasted pork flavour. Then a bizarre oily, slimy after taste came on, so I didn't seek to investigate further by repeating the experience. When the waitress got the impression we had finished with the starter she did comment on the amount remaining, as only the boy had really engaged in any way with the plank. Personally, I would be more surprised at it being ordered, not least at £10.50 per person. For main course, the waitress launched into an explanation of the three specials available, breathlessly detailing every ingredient in such a torrent of tumbling words that none of us ordered one, I'd be amazed if anyone did. So it was from the menu. Younger boy had the Ultimate Burger, his pregnant wife the Summer Risotto, all of us forgetting Gorgonzola is a blue cheese, birthday girl had the Three Cheese Caramelle and I went for Jamie's Sausage Pappardelle, which got the circled fingers of approval from the waitress. This is the description of this dish on the menu, that is inviting you to choose it; Ragù of slow-cooked fennel & free-range pork sausages with incredible Chianti, Parmesan & herby breadcrumbs. This is what I got; a pile of pasta, topped with baked Parmesan and resting in a red coloured water. On eating, I became aware that the 'sausages' were more 'minced pork'. I had wondered whether they would be whole or sliced and what spicing Italians did to make their sausages, but no, little pieces that because of the prevalance of crispy breadcrumbs may not have been present at all. Certaim;y the complete absence of anything tasting of pork didn't help. And the slow-cooked ragu sauce was watery, red and tasted slightly of fennel. The baked mozarella on top was lovely. Biggest surprise, nay shock was the pasta. For an Italian restaurant to put a clump of thick, dense chewy pasta in front of a customer, who then struggles to deftly prise it apart, is not something easily understood. We rounded off the meal with birthday girl trying to eat a portion of cheesecake that was reported OK, and the children sharing a plate of something that looked like a brownie with a dollop of cream, as the Chocolate praline Younger boy wanted wasn't available. Food thus gets 4/10 and value for money has to be a resolute 1/10. It isn't terrible, but I don't know what would draw you in to eat there, even if you were oblivious of cost.

Greece: What It Means For Us All

The comi-tragedy of the Greek financial situation continues, with the new twist of a 'no' vote in a referendum. The options for the Greeks currently are either a) to follow the diktats of the technocrats in Brussels or b) to follow the lead of a far-left party of Greek politicians.

The EU have supported the Greeks by loaning them enormous amounts of money over a long period of time. This has become so large that the Greeks have no way of meeting the repayments. The cause of this poverty is the dysfunctional nature of Greek society, where it seems almost no-one pays their taxes and have no idea that this has to have repercussions somewhere down the line.

Particularly amazing when they also expect to retire early on good pensions, they haven't paid for. The EU knew that the Greek economy did not meet the 'Euro' criteria when they allowed them to join, but everyone in Athens and Brussels hoped that this small detail didn't matter. And they also knew that, as a currency, the euro was of no use to the Greeks; it was bound to undermine their economy.

But Greece had to be part of the great European Project and facts and the plight of populations are irrelevant in that context. For the EU it represented their power and to the Greeks a source of funds.

This economic stupidity is symptomatic of Marxist regimes like the EU, but unfortunately Greece, in Syriza have a government that shares the same ideology. It has been playing dangerous games with the EU and the referendum was a stunt to scare them into doing what Syriza wants; more free money.

Whilst the Greek PM talks tough on nationhood, he is careful to not actually do anything to make withdrawal from the euro, from the EU inevitable. He certainly doesn't want the taps turned off, he wants the debt cancelled.

The EU don't want them to leave as the Project is about the power gained by forcing 'ever closer political union, under Brussels'. If Greece left, it would mean nothing is for ever, other countries being severely damaged by the incorrect currency forced on their economies could also seek to make their own way in the world, much more successfully than when shackled to a corpse.

So what does this mean for the wider world? Well, it is important to notice what has happened in our media over the last few days in particular. Phrases like 'facing the abyss', 'catastrophe' and 'disaster' were bandied about, without, in the following articles any supporting text. We were warned at the weekend that the markets would fall 5-10%, that currency instability would follow a 'no' vote.

Then the Greeks voted 'no' and the markets barely noticed and the commentators kept quiet about how incorrect their prior, dire warnings were. For Greece things are desperate and for the EU it is a political crisis, but for the rest of the world it matters not a jot.

Another favourite, to scare us into not voting 'incorrectly' in any referendum David Cameron might offer on EU membership, apart from the BBC's Nick Robinson saying referendums can have unforeseen consequences -hint; you are too stupid to be allowed to vote-, is that Britain trades mainly with the EU, it is our main trading partner.

Again without any substance, we are being given a vague, but scary warning of catastrophe and disaster, if we leave the EU. Lord knows why trade would be affected, but it is what they say.

But I have looked up some trade figures and it seems that the value of our trade with the EU is precisely £0. I looked and checked, but couldn't find anything that we export to the EU. Except that is the £13+ billion we send to Brussels. Certainly, Britain exports substantial amounts to a number of countries that are also members of the European Union, but not to the EU per se as the media and politicians keep insisting we do.

If Britain leaves the EU, we can still trade with EU members, just as others do. In fact, we could stay in the Single Market and ignore the political control if we want. Not something Brussels, or its love-struck follower David Cameron wants you to know. So, if you get the chance, don't hesitate to force our politicians to work harder once more, setting our laws and dealing with international bodies, to whom we are presently denied access, by voting to leave the EU.

Specifically, don't worry about the negatives. I don't think that we should overly concern ourselves with the salaries and pensions of people who care nothing for the people of Europe and who have done such damage. People like Jacque Delors, Angela Merkel, Neil and Glenys Kinnock and Peter Mandelson. Not people you could warm to!

What Kind Of Enemy Is Daesh?

The self-styled Islamic State, which is the same state as any group of murderous thugs, is more often related as Daesh in the civilised world. Whatever the name, who actually is the enemy, because if you don't know who your enemy is, how can you defeat them?

It is an Islamic sub-set, a cult that has gained some grip on today's muslims. This in itself is amusing as Mohammed, the prophet not one of the millions who choose to use the same name for some reason, after having to hide from his numerous enemies emerged with the literal word of God, the Koran.

He had apparently, been instructed to write down exactly what God said and from this he suddenly became popular (he had tried to gain followers for years, but with little success). Naturally, once he was powerful enough he killed all those who had tormented him previously (no doubt God had told him to do this in a side chat - no need to write this down- and was in no way personal).

As the literal word of God (something the Christian Bible does not claim for itself), no interpretation was allowed, so as the Americans would say, 'go figure' how today we have Sunni and Shiite, sects requiring the Mohammed/God inspired murder to continue.

Daesh are very particular in pushing their assertion that they are, in fact, in the right. True to the faith. Not sure what they base that on, when it is so critical that it is you who are following God's word and are not the faction. Maybe it is the usual belief in the authority of the gun; evidence would seem to point in that direction.

It has proven hard enough to deal with guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan, where territorial gain was the object, to throw out the foreigner, so how do we deal with people who don't even want that, but are satisfied with the most cowardly acts of murder?

Fundamentally, Islam is not the enemy. All the terrorists are muslims, not all muslims are terrorists. So that 'community' will supply the people that go on to cause the killings, but it is those that guide the murders that are the issue. We must, by all measures, kill them.

Bombing the forces involved in Syria is merely attacking where they feel strong, so maybe it helps, but decapitation is the key. Not of individuals, but of the organisation. If you kill the ideological leaders and keep doing it, the impetus will die too.

And we have to find and kill them without borders, no matter where they hide. Weak-minded muslims may send their sons to die a pointless death for these murderers, but ultimately the leadership are not a faith based outfit. Their ideas and mind-set are rooted in the medieval.

Now, religion is a part of it and a change within Islam would be the most powerful way to undermine these people. We have been here before.

In Western Europe of the Middle Ages, religion was a powerful force. People really believed in God, in a way that is difficult to understand today (and impossible if you are a self-impressed liberal luvvie). Kings warred on each other, but feared God and in some measure, the Pope.

When all Europe was Catholic, to be warned and/or excommunicated by the Pope was a serious business. And of course, the Church was very much behind the Crusades and the barbarity that often involved, much as the crusaders in the opposite direction today use the power of their religion.

But importantly, the Christian Church had those who questioned when they felt things went a bit far and we had a Reformation of the religious practices and schism and cults did not undermine basic faith or cause murder to become normal.

The important point here was that when Christianity had a hold on power, was allied to and involved in politics, the result was war and death. Islam is a political religion; it seeks political power. This was very important for Mohammed but has stayed unchanged and unchallenged ever since, locked in a medieval mind-set. It has held those countries back that allow it strong political power.

The Imams must as a matter of urgency, for the success of their religion, for the welfare of muslims and to scrub out the murderers that stain their holy books, introduce reform to their faith. They must humanise it and make it work with what we have come to understand of the world.

They do not need to supplant or diminish their faith in God, but when some person within their church makes crackpot assertions, quoting the Koran, the literal word of God, they need to tell them to stuff off. And nation states need to assert their independence. They need to separate church and state and no matter how devout allow politics to run the country and religion to guide their politicians conscience.

The Pound, Sterling

Briefly cornered, the self-centred Tony Blair succumbed to pressure for the UK not to join the Eurozone, much though he wanted to. So we prepared to endure all the privations of being alone and cast adrift as everyone who was allowed a say predicted.

I remember one of the key reasons the idiots quoted as to why we had to join in with the Euro was that we would not be able to survive, so close to an enormous trading bloc without having the same currency. In fact, that was one of a very, very small number of reasons, none of which had any substantiation, well, apart from fatuous assertions that millions of jobs would be lost.

Apparently, if your company deals with an EU country, all your jobs would go if the UK wasn't in the Eurozone, hence the size of the numbers 'at risk'. Jeremy Clarkson himself pointed out that we should join because then, people like him who travel extensively wouldn't have to keep getting foreign currency. So, of all the problems and paperwork facing a company trading overseas, currency exchange was of overriding concern.

Except, Clarkson still has to acquire local currency should he visit a backward country like Australia, or China, or India where, stupidly they have their own currency. And as to the problem of the big neighbour with a different currency, how on earth does Canada survive? It is not only next door to one of the largest economies in the world, but also a reasonably competent one, not something that you could accuse Brussels of.

And yet it still hasn't occurred to them that they cannot survive by the EU law of economics, without having adopted the US dollar.

Still, let us try to find some positives, after all this knocking, about the EU. It offers employment to a lot of people who don't seem otherwise employable. By taking a long time to establish a Europe wide dictatorship, they have given people the chance to realise what is being proposed for them and put a stop to it. And I suppose, it has contributed to society by keeping France and Germany distracted so they didn't start yet another war.

It is entertaining to consider that the weak and pusillanimous Cameron is almost ideally placed, by position and timing, to play the role of a Marlborough, Wellington or Churchill. He could, if he was another type of creature indeed, save Europe from the power mad grab of would be emperors in France and Germany.

Britain has used her power and prestige to stand above ridiculous continental politics and to intervene for the good when they tear each other apart. Today, we could, through resolute action of word and deed, completely destroy the Marxist Project spreading through Europe and hand back nations to their peoples.

Never forget, when Napoleon defeated Spain it became part of his empire, when Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't intend to ever give it back; it was now part of his Third Reich of a thousand years. But when a coalition led by the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, he dumped the little corporal on the naughty step of St. Helena and went home. France stayed French.

If we vote (sensibly) to leave the EU, the same will happen as when we didn't join the Euro; nothing at all. But it opens up our ability to become a world player again, as a sovereign country once more, to trade where we like and get involved in international agreements. We could trade globally how we wished and look after our own people, without doing harm to others.

To ram it home, we could trade with all the countries of the world, particularly the growing economies and not be shackled to a corpse as at present. A united Europe was a great idea in the inter-war years (when it was thought of first) for all except Britain, but why would anyone stick with a 1920's idea in the global economy of today?

Greece And Democracy

As the papers are full of comments and articles about the current Greek crisis, I won't bother to recap. What I found interesting was the bleating from Brussels that they had a consensus of what Greece should do, but they won't play ball. And then outrage that the Greek government should dare to ask their people what they think, in a referendum.

So Brussels likes their version of democracy, a group of like minded gravy-train slurpers agreeing on a course of action, but thinks that the great mass of those their measures actually affect shouldn't have a say, should not rely on democracy.

I said before about the mass of media coverage, but it is not really coverage, not if you wanted information. If all you require to know is what the EU's point of view is, then fine, you are up to date. However, if you wanted more detail, well, tough luck.

For instance, I see quite a few stories about the British Treasury drawing up contingency plans in case of a Grexit. That stock markets will sink, how your pension will be affected and generally talking of financial disaster. In passing they do mention that British banks and institutions have almost no exposure in Greece, but fail to substantiate where, exactly the disaster lies.

The reason for this is simple. The disaster will be political. It will damage, perhaps fatally the politics of the European Project. And that is way, way more important than money (it's someone else's anyway) or the well being of the Greek people.

You see, if Greece leaves the Eurozone it will prove it is possible, ditto if it also leaves the EU. All this at a time when much of Europe is concerned with the nature and competence of the Project and David Cameron in particular is carefully crafting scare stories about leaving the EU.

Worse still of course, is the prospect of Greece reverting to the Drachma and with a currency floating to its natural level in the market, becoming a successful nation. (This would require the Greeks to get off their backsides and work and the government to actually collect the taxes too, though).

This example would have the other injured countries in a Franco-German pact set at a level to suit themselves, rushing for the exit. And having risked and been rewarded with a war as a result of attempting to expand this empire into Ukraine, Brussels would not then want to see Spain, Portugal, Italy and perhaps Ireland, leave.

The Spectator had a blog by some dimwit fashion writer for the Guardian wittering on about her amazement that the anti-EU stance of anyone, let alone the ungrateful Greeks should be tolerated. This not only says much about her statist, Marxist mind-set, but also how far reaching is the propaganda of the EU (they do spend a lot of your money on it).

It also shows how the current vogue, much promoted by and for the service of Marxists of not thinking about things yourself has caught on. How keen people are to have ideas planted, fully furnished in their heads, which they then believe and spout, no matter how evidently absurd the notion.

No, what the Greeks have to fear is either they will have to work harder and pay their taxes, or that they stay in the EU and accept the current status as their lot in perpetuity. They are not facing austerity to pay back debts, they are being pushed until the country exists at a level that fits the Franco-German model.

The Dance Begins

Mr. Cameron is now making his opening overtures in his renegotiation of powers with the EU. Or so he would have us believe. For someone who has so far omitted to mention what specific powers he wants returned, indeed what the thrust of the renegotiation is, he seems at something of an advanced stage with our overlords.

Presumably he is able to tell them what he wants. We are led to believe that one will be an end to 'ever closer union'. And with such a big question we must ask ourselves, just how genuine is this man who wants us to stay in the EU, even before he has had his cosy chats.

The single point of the Common Market (as it was sold to us by the bare faced liar Heath) has been, is and always will be to create a single nation called Europe. For some it is to put the US in their place and create an, at least equal superstate. For others, it was to recreate the Soviet Union. Working towards this has led to the constant name changes and the increasing grab for power, within sovereign states.

Mind, I say sovereign states, but are we? When Heath signed over law-making in Britain to the government in Brussels (something he had no constitutional power to do, so was illegal) how exactly did the pretence of our being an independent country continue? The Scottish 'parliament' was only allowed as a precursor to it becoming the 'local authority for the area previously known as Scotland' within the EU superstate, no matter what the pompous assumptions of Nicola Sturgeon.

So, if genuine, Cameron is chipping away at the foundations of the whole project, whilst desperately trying not to let the cat out of the bag as to what the end game of 'ever closer union' is. He also hopes fervently that the general public don't understand the way the EU works. Everyone has been conscientious in not explaining it, ever, so it should work.

The usual draft of useful idiots on Question Time will give him the belief that he is right and a letter to the Sunday Telegraph last weekend couldn't have been more definitive of the opposite of reality. The correspondent wrote 'It should not be forgotten that this union has kept the peace in Europe, for the past 70 years, and that Russia is still a threat to stability today.'

The EU has done nothing at all to maintain peace, other than perhaps keeping the perennial problem-causers France and Germany in alliance to build a joint empire. NATO however, has done the job of protector and peacekeeper. Russia is a threat because it remains unstable, but we should remember that it was the expansionist moves of the EU that provoked Russia to protect its 'area of interest' in the Ukraine.

The most common bleat of course is the enormous amount of trade and therefore jobs that we will lose if we leave the EU. You will notice again, there is never any actual public debate on the issue, because like Global Warming, if debate was allowed, then the lies would be too easily exposed.

The EU is a political project, nothing more. It is to build the empire the French and Germans have constantly sought by perpetually bringing war to Europe. That would be the French, who after folding with remarkable speed in WW2, sided with the Nazis and placed their forces at the disposal of the Axis, even fighting British forces.

They whinged when we left via Dunkirk, because they felt we should fight to save their country while not that concerned to do it themselves. Despite the fact that we risked British lives and ships to evacuate 140,000 of their soldiers. And what did most of them then do? They went back to France and were made POW's! A mere 7000 joined De Gaulle's Free French and even then, the number involved in D-Day, the landing to liberate France, was 177.

De Gaulle, epitomising the French hauteur  suggested that the country that no longer existed as an independent entity, France, should join with Britain to become a single state. Nice. No doubt he felt that he was the man to run it too. There is a word for people like him and it cannot be used in front of children, but applies equally to the tribe in Brussels.

There is of course much else; as we constantly see from examples like Spanish house purchases by Brits, to French rules for French farmers benefit, to the Greek tragedy, we are not a single people. There is no demos.

If we see merit in the trading bloc bit though, fine, stick with that for now. People are deliberately mislead naturally, about what the EU is. You do not have to be in the EU to be in the Single Market. And as for influence, well we ain't got none. We are one voice in 28 and are represented at the international level by the EU.

Most new laws originate as ideas outside the EU with International bodies, ones where the old British seat is empty. They then make decisions, the EU rep having had 'his' say and is then converted into EU law. If we were back as a real sovereign state, we could go to the meetings on our own account and have our say directly. Like Norway does. Inside the Single Market but not the EU.

We don't have to copy that idea, we can have our own, tailored to our needs. But here's the thing. The big leaders meetings are not about negotiations and getting things done. That all happens behind the scenes, as Margaret Thatcher found out after being convinced by snivelling aides that the EU had a point (which it does, if you are a bureaucrat). When banging the table and meeting blank stares someone kindly took her aside and explained the deal had already been done.

Just enjoy the meal and smile for the photoshoot. And just like her views on Global Warming, she changed her mind when she found out more. (The Left of course, only ever mention she supported both).

So it really is simple. We leave the EU but sign up for the Single Market. Which solves our immigration, balance of payments to the EU, lawmaking, tax and employment problems (or at least gives us the chance to find cures) and shuts up the ignorant savages at the CBI and beyond, who want the political union for some undefined reason.

If however, you want more of the Greek experience, more state control, indeed more of a Soviet Union of Europe, then please vote for it. It may be the last bit of democracy you see. And you get the Euro! Happy days.

Evolution

I like plants and I like a nice garden, but I really can't get interested in the detail and by God the work! So, watching gardening programmes and the Chelsea Flower Show on TV is endured not enjoyed (wife driven, naturally).

But you know, interesting things crop up in the strangest of places. A week or so ago one of the shows had a chap talking about a plant that he said is able to adapt quickly to new environments, so if it finds itself somewhere wet, it passes on coping strategies to its offspring (is that what plants have?).

At the time I just thought 'smart little bugger', but later whilst reposing in a bath (the soak is much underrated in modern society) it struck me that this was potentially something fundamental. In one of my earliest posts I moaned at the flaws, as they appeared to me, in the theory of evolution as currently understood.

Big forward jumps, survival of the fittest etc. The usual how and why the eye. And I become convinced that somehow we manage to pass into our DNA ideas rather than merely length of thigh bone and hair colour. Things that are important to the parents get passed on. A clue for me is instinct. What the hell is that?

The Joey finds its way from birth canal to pouch containing the nipple it needs to survive. How does it know a journey is required, who gave it directions and why is it born with the strength to achieve the trek?

And back to the plant. We may wonder about the thoughts our dog has, but a plant is surely a mechanical device. Having accidentally found the chemical reaction to turn sunlight into fuel to grow as a plant, it has ways to move moisture up the stem and deploys colour and lovely sweet stuff to attract bees to carrying away the pollen, to seed new plants and ensure the survival of the species.

Whoa! Back up! They do what? Darwin of course recognises that it was an accident, a mutation that one day meant a plant produced a colour that attracted a bee. The sweet substance was also a lucky accident and so the symbiotic relationship was formed. Really? That is a lot of accidents. What came first, the bee or the nectar?

But the plant in our programme, it was suggested, skips the randomness of accidents and the long drawn out process of evolution. It somehow changes to cope with differing conditions it encounters as it grows and then passes that information on to the next generation, so it is better able to cope from the outset. I know the first part still accords with Darwinian theory, but how does it ensure (and possibly, why) that its seed develops differently?

There has to be a feedback loop into the DNA. Which might also link in to the stories of 'the power of the mind' to make yourself well. And why pregnant women seem to have strange cravings for food that contains nutrients she is low on, at that time. How the hell does she know what good a lump of coal is going to be? Instant chemical analysis?

Anyway, I clearly don't know, but food for thought surely?