Tomorrow, dear reader, is the 29th day of February, and you know what that means. The Wikipedia article on Leap Year informs us:
Because astronomical events and seasons do not repeat in a whole number of days, calendars that have the same number of days in each year drift over time with respect to the event that the year is supposed to track. By inserting (called intercalating in technical terminology) an additional day or month into the year, the drift can be corrected.
[…]
The length of a day is also occasionally corrected by inserting a leap second into Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) because of variations in Earth’s rotation period. Unlike leap days, leap seconds are not introduced on a regular schedule because variations in the length of the day are not entirely predictable.
And that’s not all. Wikipedia also says:
Over a period of four centuries, the accumulated error of adding a leap day every four years amounts to about three extra days. The Gregorian calendar therefore drops three leap days every 400 years, which is the length of its leap cycle. This is done by dropping February 29 in the three century years (multiples of 100) that cannot be exactly divided by 400
There’s even more to it, but if you want to know it all, you’re on your own. The point we’re making is that these calendar adjustments are necessary because of the irregular and very sloppy mathematical relationship between the length of a terrestrial day and the length of a year. What do we learn from this?
Isn’t it obvious? What we have is clear, undeniable evidence that the solar system — allegedly created as the abode for man — was not intelligently designed, and therefore neither was the rest of the universe. Our logic is undeniable.
Therefore, we’re declaring this to be an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.
Okay, dear reader, the comment section is open — have at it!
Addendum: At ol’ Hambo’s website there’s an article by their creationist astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, titled Leap Day 2020: A Brief History of Leap Day, in which Danny discusses the complications and irregularities of the calendar. Near the end he says:
Some Christians find this unsettling, because it seems to them that there not being an integral multiple of days in the month or year doesn’t fit in with their concept of a “very good” creation. But who are we to impose our concepts of “very good” on what God has done?
Make of it what you will.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
One of my hobby-horses is “suernatural design is an oxymoron”. I have discovered that John Stuart Mill had brought u someting like that in one of his “Three Essays on Religion”. In the essay titled “Theism”, near the beginning of the section “Attributes”:
“It’s not too much to say that every indication of design in the
universe is evidence against the omnipotence of the designer. For
what do we mean by ‘design’? Contrivance—the devising of means
to an end. But the need for contrivance—the need to use means—is
a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would use means
to an end that he could achieve just by saying the word? The
very idea of means implies that the means have an effectiveness
that the direct action of the being who employs them doesn’t
have. Otherwise they aren’t means, but merely encumbrance. A man doesn’t use machinery to move his arms! If he did, it would be because paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. And if the use of contrivances is in itself a sign of limited power, the careful and skillful choice
of contrivances is even more so. Can any wisdom be shown in the
selection of means if the means owe all their effectiveness to the
will of him who employs them, and when his will could have made
any other means equally effective? Wisdom and contrivance are
shown in overcoming difficulties, so there is no place for them in
a Being for whom no difficulties exist.”
Apparently, Mill accepted the arguent from design – although he opined that Darwin’s “natural selection” might prove a difficulty – but believed that design proved the existence of a finite designer.
For anyone interested in a deep dive into leap years through seconds, Phil Plait has a post on this that’s interesting and entertaining to read. Try: Leap-Years /a>
The Bad Astronomer hints at some of the complexities that make chronometry complicated.
When the extra day was added, it was not February 29. They didn’t count days that simple, obvious way. The days nesr the end of the month were counted backward: ending up with the 6th day before the next month, 5th, 4th etc. The extra day was added after the 6th, and called the second 6th, in Latin, “bissextilis”. The extra leap day was what we count as (I think) February 23.
“bissextilis” is an alternate term for “leap year”, which is used in some European languages.
Ted Cruz and Mike Pence “science” buddies
https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-says-ted-cruz-doesnt-believe-evolution-after-pair-spar-over-pence-leading-coronavirus-1489770
Brain things
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness
Today I’m a bit more careful than our dear SC:
“What do we learn from this?”
That fine-tuning is a crappy argument, only maintained by cherry-picking. However dismantling an argument pro does not necessarily result in an argument con.
From the Dutch YECsite Logos.nl, which is still going strong as ever.
When does the calendar begin? The answer begins with “We don’t know how long Adam and Eve stayed in Paradise before the Fall”.
Orthodox judaism and creationism: some orthodox jews accept evolution theory, others don’t.
LEGO allows dino’s to live with humans. I seem to remember that Playmobil did the same.
Piling up assumptions – are rings of trees and other dating methods reliable? I haven’t checked as my bet is “no, because we only accept operational science as long as its conclusions suit us”.
Is ‘Danuvius guggenmosi’ a new step in the direction of the missing link? I immediately jumped to the conclusion: “Proof for evolution = 0”. Of course, nothing proves or is evidence for evolution. Never.
The most interesting headline (again I didn’t read the article) is
“In navolging van Velikovsky ben ik van mening dat de 18e dynastie samenvalt met de periode van het twee- en tienstammenrijk.”
“Following Velikovsky I opine that the 18th dynasty [of Ancient Egypt – FrankB] coincides with the era of the empire of two- and ten tribes.”
The interesting bit is: crackpot has found crackpot.
@FrankB
The laws of nature are fine tuned for life life.
is incompatible with:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes life impossible.
Remember the news from a month ago about how Brazil is officially going creationist and the Discoveroids are thrilled? If not, see Discoveroids Respond to Brazilian Creationism. Well, according to PhysOrg, Brazil is even crazier than anyone suspected: To 11 million Brazilians, the Earth is flat.
Just added an addendum to the post, because ol’ Hambo’s website discusses the peculiarities that require leap years.
There is some good stuff in Dannyboy’s blogpost.
“Many Christians think that the year once was 360 days long, but that the year’s length catastrophically changed in the past, perhaps at the time of the flood.”
“I found that there was no good evidence that the year ever was that long,”
Huh? Dannyboy cares about the quality of evidence? No worries:
“so going back to creation, the day, month, and year probably had lengths similar to what they have today.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Who are we to impose our concepts of “very good” on what God has done?
And, by the way, nor impose on what the Bible says and does not say.
So, if we don’t like the idea of descent from common ancestors, that is not enough to reject it.
I have been reading further what Mill has to say on design. ISTM that Mill might have had in mind a question that William Paley had raised. See Wikiquote.org for William Paley, Natural Theology, Ch. 1 State of the Argument, “One question may …” and the note: “See also John Stuart Mill#Part II:Attributes”.
I think I understand why the US chief executive has declined pay; all of his time is taken up with tweets, rallies, and golf and there is none left for doing the job. You get what you pay for has never been more appropriate.
As long as you brought up pols
Why haven’t we heard about the annual physical exam? There was the sudden rush job in November, but I haven’t heard anything about it, or the full exam.
Or the tax returns
The Covid 19 virus is starting to cause fatalities in the U.S. The first community acquired case is hospitalized and intubated at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, CA. I did my Residency at that hospital. We are facing a crises and have the most incompetent leadership of any country in the world. Mike Pence, a creationist is supposed to be leading the Federal; response. 124 doctors and nurses at UC Davis are in self quarantine due to their care of the infected patient. I had just retired but if this keeps up I may have to renew my California Medical License and go back to work.
@Stephen Kennedy: Yes, the press conference with Pence, a creationist preacher whose only qualification is apparent adoration of Trump, and Anthony Fauci, an expert of viral infections, on the same stage and appointing the preacher to head the response to Covid 19, was appalling.
Other people unclear on reality
https://www.nst.com.my/world/world/2020/02/569730/indonesia-official-says-strong-sperm-can-impregnate-women-swimming-pool
Here’s a brief sumary of my take on the argument from design against evolution
1. The argument from design for a couple of thousand years has been a group of arguments for the existence of God. Why and how did it suddenly become an argument for a completely different conclusion: evolution is false.
2. Design by itself does not tell us anything about anything.
a. Even things which do not exist are designed.
b. As an example of someting which we know is designed: the smile on the Mona Lisa. Why is there that smile? “It is designed” is not an answer.
c. When we are told that the sculptures on Mont Rushmore are designed, how is that the same or different for the design of the weeds and flies and rocks?
3. Supernatural design is an oxymoron.
4. If we don’t know what or when or why or how God designs, how can we know that God iddn’t design evolution?
5. Fine tuning as an example of design is incompatible with the argument that thermodynamics or other laws of nature make life impossible. Which one is correct?
So, when does AIG think that the 400 day year happened as documented in the fossil record?
The previous IFFZ thread, Super Bowl Free Fire Zone, closed before I had opportunity (1) to correct an error in one of my posts there, and (2) to reply to further points raised there by Dave Luckett. I have refrained from posting on this present IFFZ until this blog had moved on for the sake of not cluttering things for other guests here with no interest in Brexit—though the topic is IMHO of relevance to this blog as an illustration of how a dishonest political fringe can successfully work a ‘Wedge Strategy’, and to the detriment of Enlightenment values.
But to first correct a point where I misunderstood Dave Luckett’s post on that previous IFFZ thread, where he stated:
I misunderstood the above to claim the UK’s status had it instead remained a member of the EU, whereas the intent was a claim about the UK’s status, post-Brexit, were it to retain sufficient alignment with EU legislation in order to retain its previous access to the single market and customs union (the so-called ‘Norway Option’).
My bad for misunderstanding Dave’s point, with which I of course agree: the Norway Option does indeed mean that the UK would be without “any input at all” to the future development of EU legislation, which would be an idiotic condition. But that is precisely one of the options which the Leave campaign advocated during the Referendum Campaign!, as I previously cited.
And Dave Luckett previously asked
Apologies, the term is commonplace here. For current usage, Cambridge Dictionary: little Englander:
And Wikipedia: Little Englander adds
q.v. Nigel Farage.
Personally, I eschew the pejorative synonym Gammon as it does not further serious discussion, though the definition in the Urban Dictionary is quite funny:
@ Our Curmudgeon: As admirable as is your proposed Sexit, I fear it may be too ambitious for a single step. You need to start with a more modest goal, and then build up to full departure from the Solar System. In other words, you need a Wedge Strategy!
And lo! One is readily to hand, viz:
All the arguments in favour of Brexit, which have now detached the UK from the EU, apply a fortiori to a programme to break up the USA into its 50 individual states. After all, unlike the EU, the USA actually does possess its own armed forces, dictates foreign and trade policy, taxes the citizens, &c &c—and permits of no legal means for a member state to withdraw from the Union!
Strictly speaking, I suppose that only the original 13 colonies, in the period between 1776 and 1788 were unambiguously independent states that “relinquished some of their own right to govern” when they ratified the Constitution. It may be further objected that a previous attempt by a group of states to secede from the Union resulted in a horrendous Civil War. But Brexit clearly shows the way forward: don’t let facts get in the way!
So I am hoping that, with your local knowledge, you can kick off the Wedge by campaigning for Florida to “take back control” with Flexit!.
I believe you have a fringe demographic in the Florida panhandle who will respond enthusiastically to a call to arms to seal the border against retiring ‘New Yorkers’ (I’m sure they’ll hear the dog-whistle there) who drive up property prices but drive their cars slowly. Never mind the loss of revenue to the Orlando theme parks, never mind the border inspections and tariffs when you export oranges—you’ll be able to call your onions Vidalias (though not export them to Georgia) when Florida takes back control!
After Flexit, of course, Alabama will follow with Alexit as the rest of the states topple like dominoes. And don’t worry about funding or international support for the campaign: Putin and Xi will enthusiastically endorse the programme!
Neanderthal finger trouble! Of course, should be “1776 and 1788”.
Apologies!
[Voice from above:] All is well — or as your kind would say: Oook, oook!
@Megalonyx
Texas was independent before it joined the USA. Also Hawaii, Vermont and California.
Dave Luckett previously wrote
Jeepers! I had no idea that such tariffs were a unique feature of the EU, wholly unknown anywhere else on the globe! Nor did I appreciate that, post-Brexit, the UK will no longer have any tariffs at all! One wonders why we are currently need to negotiate Trade Deals with other nations when only the EU has tariffs!
For indeed—horror of horrors!—the EU does apply tariffs on, say, footwear from China, when it investigated and documented that those goods had been produced using state subsidies and were being dumped on foreign markets at below the cost of production. Or, for another example, in retaliation for politically-motivated tariffs recently applied by the Trump administration. &c &c
So I’m afraid your point here escapes me. On the one hand, you object to the EU because it administers tariffs, and yet you also object to it because of your belief that
–the creation and maintenance of which required, in a world of tariffs, the agreement of tariffs of its own. So what’s your point? Or rather, what do you find objectionable in the trade policies of the EU that is not at least equally (if not more so) applicable to virtually every other trading nation or federation on earth? And no, I am not arguing that the current system of global trade is at all optimal—but it is what it is.
So yes, on your objections to tariffs, I indeed
Not even one shining example? With your encyclopaedic knowledge of all things EU, I would have expected an impressive list. Oh, wait, you go on to say
You do know, of course, that the first legislative step of Brexit was when the UK Parliament, in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, incorporated EU legislation into UK law? This was to repatriate those areas of legislation which had previously been enacted at the supranational level in order, on a case by case basis in future, to retain, amend or repeal them.
Well, fine, this is indeed “taking back control,” and permits us now to diverge where we wish from standards and principles which we previously set in conjunction with our largest trading partner. But it was not unreasonable to ask, prior to the Referendum, which such standards and principles we intended to replace with bespoke ones of our own, and that question is even more pressing, now that we have taken this step. But your response:
No, I’m still asking the same question I have always asked, and neither you nor any Brexiteer I’ve ever asked are able to give an answer—apart, that is, from the Little Englanders, who are at least honest enough to explicitly state their objection, to wit: the removal or at least the severe reduction of non-Brits from the UK, because “n*****s begin at Calais.”
N.B.: I am not claiming that most (leave alone all) Brexiteers are racist! But I do think there is very strong evidence that the Leave campaign was firmly rooted in the fringe xenophobic far Right—and would have remained on the political fringe had it not succeeded in developing, just as the DI has attempted to develop, a ‘Wedge Strategy’. I previously provided a link to data showing that, in the 2010 UK General Election, the EU registered as an election issue for only 11% of voters, but—two years into the global financial crisis that began in 2008—“immigration” had indeed reared up as an election issue for 30%. By the time of the 2015 UK General Election , the EU did not figure at all as a separate election issue, but immigration still did—and, rather deftly it must be said, the far right fringe developed their ‘Wedge’ by coupling the issues together. As Farage said at the time (quote from link just given):
This was of course a flat-out lie. Freedom of Movement (FM) only applies to citizens of EU member states, and they have always been less than half of annual net migration to the UK. Along with every other EU member, the UK set its own national policy on immigration from non-EU nations; the UK government could have applied its new ‘points based’ system to non-EU immigrants at any time in the past.
Stoking moral panic over foreigners and immigration—where have we seen that before? Never mind the facts (EU citizens living in working in the UK were net contributors to the economy, native UK employment has been at record highs in recent years despite wage stagnation, and FM worked in two directions to enable large numbers of Brits to work, live or retire in the EU)—facts be damned! There’s no denying that Farage’s coupling of immigration and the EU during the continuing economic stagnation from 2008 gave him the best electoral results he had ever achieved hitherto: 12.5% of the popular vote and, for the first time, even 1 seat for UKIP in Parliament.
I won’t repeat what I previously wrote about PM Cameron’s political blundering at that point; of greater relevance to this blog is the illustration of a ‘Wedge Strategy’ at work. Readers of this blog will little doubt that the luminaries of the Discovery Institute (and their ilk) have no interest in science but are keen on a reactionary (perhaps even theocratic) political programme—and to further that agenda, have no compunction about fabricating severe distortions and outright lies: ‘no Darwin, no Hitler’, Expelled, &c &c, and, critically, to also represent themselves as champions of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, &c &c.
And if it was just the DI pumping out their nonsense, if would be of little consequence. But their falsehoods take on the potency of the Big Lie through the repetition by all the sincere but ill-informed Useful Idiots whose endless letters to the editor (as immortalised in our Curmudgeon’s Creationist Wisdom and Self-Published Genius series until they become common currency. Remember when George W. Bush, no doubt with benign intent, endorsed “Teach the controversy?”
I don’t need to itemise—again–the demonstrable falsehoods about the EU which you have yourself repeated.
Megalonyx: The outcome of the currently active contest to see who gets the Presidential nomination for the Democrat party could very well encourage some states to exit — if that were that a possibility. It isn’t, so the only other option is for individuals to seek what would amount to refugee status in other countries. There could be interesting times ahead.
@SC
About the expression “Democrat Party”, see the Wikipedia article “Democrat Party (epithet)”.
TomS, that’s just plain weird. There have been Presidents from that party that I thought were okay — e.g.: Truman and Kennedy.
To finish off my glosses on previous comments, and then I’m done 😊:
For you, sitting comfortably at a keyboard on the other side of the planet free from any accountability for disseminating demonstrable falsehoods, it is indeed a mere matter of opinion.
But for us in the UK—my family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, countrymen—it is our future prosperity, social cohesiveness, relations between the nations of the UK, and our place in the world. All of those things have already been damaged by Brexit, and the probability of even greater damage in the future is very high.
Not quite. The slim majority in the Referendum, and a minority in the subsequent FPTP election, swallowed the Big Lies about the EU such as you have also uncritically promulgated.
We’ll skip over that “Relinquished some of their own right to govern” phrase for the moment; it only demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the Treaty of Rome and we’ve fruitless been through that before. Instead, let’s consider another “opinion of the majority”:
Depending on how you ask the question, something like 60% of Americans disbelieve that natural selection alone can account for the species currently existing on earth, but instead either were created as they are by God, or that their evolution has been ‘guided’ by God. Well, that’s “opinion.
Now, suppose for a moment, that the Evangelical lobby in the USA were able, by working their own Wedge Strategy but using democratic means in Congress, to have the Establishment Clause removed from the 1st Amendment and enabling thereby the inclusion of Creationism in school science curricula. We would, as democrats, be obliged to accept that result, just as we are obliged to accept the Brexit vote. But it does not change the reality of the science. And, ultimately, that is what matters.
As previously said, the EU applies tariffs in the same way and for the same reasons that virtually all other bodies that are so empowered do so. And in a world with extremely powerful trading entities like the United States and China, which pursue their own best interests, post-Brexit UK will use precisely the same mechanisms—though whether as an individual market of 66 million souls it can strike better deals than it could as part of the EU’s market of 512 million remains to be seen (spoiler alert: I doubt it).
But all credit to you for your compassion for “the worst off”—whom you previously had no compunction about condemning to the costs of a possible post-Brexit recession.
You persist in representing the EU as an alien body exerting power on its own behalf over captive member states who purportedly “relinquished some of their own right to govern.” I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the EU is nothing more and can do nothing more than what its members collectively agree. It has far less power than a full federation like the United States or the United Kingdom, nor is it able to extend its power beyond those which it is granted by collective agreement of its constituent members. That is the reality which you deny, and it is growing tiresome to play whack-a-mole with your delusions of an ‘expansionist Empire’ that is ‘undemocratic’, ‘taxes’ citizens of member states, wields ‘armed forces’ yadda yadda. Those are all manifest lies. As politely as I can, let me suggest that your depiction of the EU is not grounded in reality but in pre-existing bias.
Turning to the more immediate issues of the current negotiations on future trading relations between the United “Take Back Control” Kingdom and the EU, you state:
I agree with you here—the cherry-picking the Brexiteers are insisting upon is not going to happen, and never could happen except in the delusional fantasies of our Little Englanders. The whole point of Brexit is to enable the UK to diverge from EU regulations, so one cannot expect at the same time to continue to enjoy the benefits of harmonisation. So there will be border checks on goods &c &c and a good deal more bureaucratic expense (to private businesses as well as government) and all as a result, not of the EU’s actions, but because of those of the Brexiteers. One cannot have the cake and eat it.
Which is precisely how the UK managed things while it was a member of the EU! D’oh!
It isn’t the EU that has expelled the UK! The EU—do I really have to say it again—can only do what its members collectively agree to do, and the remaining members can hardly be expected now to damage their own benefits from membership in order to facilitate the UK’s desire to compete rather than co-operate. It is the UK which is now reneging on the political declaration component (which, admittedly, is not legally binding, only a gentleman’s agreement) which was part of the Withdrawal Agreement signed in January. But my goodness, aren’t those foreigners being beastly!
Is it? How so? Ahh, you claim that the UK’s new
Consider two scenarios:
[1] Anyone from anywhere in the EU is free to take his or her labour to wherever in the EU he or she can command, due to local demand, the best price for it
[2] Under the new legislation, the UK government sets the threshold of minimum salaries for its own list of specified preferred occupations of applicant migrants, and moreover can cap the number of applicants it approves. The government can vary those thresholds as it sees fit.
Which one represents the free working of the market?
You continue:
OK, now I think we’re getting to the heart of your antipathy to the EU.
Do you really suppose that “allegiance” is solitary and exclusive? Do you not recognise that one can at the same time be, say, English and British, or Texan and American? Or indeed possess a number of identities, affiliations, and loyalties: Southerners, New Yorkers, Italian-Americans, Yorkshireman, Cornish folk, &c &c.
But hang on, I’m conflating ‘identity’ with ‘allegiance’ (or let’s be frank about your concern here, which I take to be ‘loyalty’), so maybe I’m missing your intention in talking about “true allegiance” , which you say is owed
Which leaves me to wonder, what is the true allegiance of, say, a true Scotsman? And who is to determine that? The nation state? You?
–as it does not ask (leave alone require) such, anymore than, say, the ISO. Membership in the EU in no way dilutes individual nationalities or “allegiances”, except in the minds of Little Englanders who just don’t like Johnny Foreigner. The French are every bit as French as they have ever been, ditto the Italians, the Dutch &c &c.
But I will grant you this: membership in the EU did dull some of the previous murderous conflicts between national identities. But now, thanks to Brexit, we are re-opening of wounds in Ireland which had been healing, and have ignited fresh tensions in other relations between the nations that comprise the United Kingdom. What joy!
But back to your bit about ‘allegiance to the EU’, which you acknowledge does not exist–
Gotta love the internet! Where else could I, 47 years resident in the UK, with a British wife (the wonderful Olivia!) and a brace of British daughters, and for the past five years—having aced the Life in the UK Test and taken the Oath the Allegiance and Pledge of Loyalty as administered by the High Sheriff of Hertfordshire, a naturalised British Citizen—to have my ‘loyalty’ questioned by an antipodean keyboard warrior who thinks the EU is a tax-levying, armed Empire! And all, it would seem, because I failed to resent the previous ability of Germans and Italians to pass through the border of my adopted country with fewer formalities than Australians!
You can’t make it up!
–or they might be plural—
Well, we certainly know from history what a Europe made up of competing nation-states looks like! The 20th century alone was quite a doozy!
Perhaps you failed to notice that everything did change in 1945? That is when European leaders began the endeavour to reject jingoism, sectarianism, and mindless nationalism in favour of the a unique supranational co-operative based on the common European values of the Enlightenment: reason, tolerance, liberty, and the equality and fraternity of mankind. And that is the evolving project on which the Brexiteers have turned their back in favour of the Little Englandism advocated by the folks for whom the stand-out event of the Referendum was Bob Geldoff and Nigel Farage arguing on boats rather than the murder of Jo Cox MP by a man of “true allegiance” shouting “Britain first!”
Well, bugger, screwed up an html tag thingie on the last link in previous post.
I’m stepping away from the keyboard now, with apologies…
[Voice from above:] You’ve done worse.
@Mega: “But for us in the UK …..”
So many words you need for things I’ve formulated in a much shorter, albeit also far less polite way. Let me repeat: Brexit is just about emotion. Brexiteers, including DaveL, are nor more receptive for facts, data and evidence than creacrappers regarding evolution.
But on one point I side with DaveL. The outcome of the last elections is unambiguous. The electorate perfectly knew what they were about. It doesn’t make sense to lament. It’s better to look forward, both personally and politically.
What are you going to do? Do you have your own exit strategy? Not that I expect an answer from you here, but I seriously think you (and other Remainers) should try to formulate one for yourself.
As for politics, as I’ve lost empathy for England (and no, DaveL, that does not mean that I dislike Britain and the Britons, so save yourself and us that f****g lie – I dislike Brexit nationalist stupidities like yours) the most important issues are, in this order: Ulster/Northern Ireland, Scottish independency (Brexiteers being hypocrits of course have “reasons” to oppose it) and Gibraltar. I’ve read little about them lately and unfortunately you still seem to be so disappointed that you haven’t written about them either.
So possibly with DaveL I say: get over it.
@FrankB
Speaking of independence, what about independence for London?
Would be fun!
Only in the sense that a bloody civil war would be fun, FrankB. But of course, like various other remarks you have let fall, that is to be taken as nothing more than good-natured joshing on your part, and not evidence of your dislike of the British at all.