quinta-feira, 5 de março de 2026

Youtube - Conversa acabada ( Como Preparar o País para Catástrofes - Conversa Acabada

Entrevista de Camilo Lourenço ao eng. Fernando Santo sobre os recentes acontecimentos (fenómenos atmosféricos) em Portugal, sobretudo na zona de Leiria.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoyWfe3Z09k

The Spectator - Arctic role: what does Trump really want from Greenland?

 (personal underlines)

Arctic role: what does Trump really want from Greenland?

Donald Trump has probably not read Machiavelli, even the short one, The Prince. Machiavelli’s most famous advice was that it’s better for a prince to be feared than loved. But above all, he said, a ruler should strive not to be hated. Nobody likes a bully. The US President, however, clearly doesn’t care about any of this in his attempt to intimidate Denmark into handing over Greenland. 

Why does Trump want Greenland? A clue lay in his meeting at the White House last week with the Florida Panthers ice hockey team. The team lined up for a photo: red ties and muscle-bound torsos bursting out of suit jackets, Trump in front of them at a lectern. ‘Good-looking people, young, beautiful people, I hate them. You hate standing here with all this power behind you.’ He went on: ‘But I got power too, it’s called the United States military. I don’t care.’

Trump saw one of the team hovering with gifts, a hockey shirt – with ‘Trump 47’ on the back – and a gold hockey stick: ‘Ooh, that looks nice. I hope it’s a stick and not just a shirt. That stick looks beautiful… Maybe I get both. Who the hell knows. I’m President, I’ll just take them.’ Whatever rationalisations Trump’s officials come up with, there’s a similar reason he wants to take Greenland: because he can.

Thomas Dans, the US Arctic commissioner, told USA Today that some kind of American action could happen within ‘weeks or months’. Dans said he hoped a deal could be done, so it may be just a coincidence that the 11th Airborne Division, based in Alaska, has been put on a few hours’ notice to move. The public story is that they may be needed to help immigration agents in Minneapolis, but they are trained in Arctic warfare and are the closest American unit to Greenland. Sending them to the US base there would ratchet up the pressure on Denmark. 

Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of the Danish parliament’s defence committee, believes an American invasion can’t be ruled out. ‘We wake up every morning to new threats and new false accusations from the US administration,’ he says. ‘Very little would surprise me at this point.’ Danish politicians give off an air of befuddlement. They are hurt to be treated this way after years as one of America’s most loyal allies, shoulder to shoulder in Iraq and Afghanistan, and think American officials have taken leave of their senses.

Jarlov tells me: ‘We’re struggling to understand. We keep asking the Americans why they want Greenland and we’re not getting logical answers. If they would tell us what it is that they would gain from annexation, then we could talk about how we could achieve that in other ways. But they’re not. They’re not really coming up with a reason. We’re willing to give them access to what they think they need, but we can’t do that if they don’t tell us what it is.’

According to Mike Waltz, Trump’s former national security adviser, what they want are rare earth minerals. Greenland certainly has a lot of them, but getting them out of the frozen ground is difficult and expensive. American companies can already buy mining rights, but there’s been no rush to do this because it’s far from certain they would make any money: there’s a reason rare minerals are not yet being mined in Greenland. Even if they were to be extracted, they would have to be sent to China to be processed.

Trump’s declared rationale is national security. He has said: ‘Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.’ It is possible, however, that he is muddling up different parts of the Arctic.

Professor Elana Wilson Rowe, of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, tells me the real worry for the US ought to be the Bering Strait, just off Alaska, 8,000 miles from Greenland. Russia and China have carried out joint naval exercises there on America’s northern doorstep. ‘For sure, the Arctic is a strategic location,’ she says, but Trump and his officials were ‘transposing’ the threat from their own bit of the Arctic to Greenland. ‘The idea of an immediate threat [there] is significantly exaggerated.’

If there is a new Arctic ‘Great Game’, it is around, not on, Greenland. As polar ice melts, new shipping lanes are opening. Chinese vessels have started to make voyages between China and Europe, and China and Russia, using this northern sea route. They may want to do much more of this in years to come, a polar Belt and Road strategy. But despite claiming to be an Arctic power, China is 1,000 miles distant. It has no permanent military presence in the Arctic.

It’s a different story with the Russians – and here the real danger lies. They have even planted a Russian flag, made from titanium, on the seabed at the geographic North Pole. The Danish government has repeatedly pointed out that Nato would break if the US invaded Greenland. But there is another way Trump might destroy the alliance. Moscow has been militarising its Arctic coast. As the ‘rules-based international order’ melts like the polar ice, Vladimir Putin might decide to seize the Norwegian territory of Svalbard.

Svalbard is an archipelago of islands about 500 miles off Norway. Russia has long coveted it. The islands would be part of Russia’s ‘Bastion Defence’, giving Moscow the kind of ‘strategic depth’ used as the justification to invade Ukraine. Svalbard controls the Bear Gap, the chokepoint that Russian submarines must cross to reach the Atlantic. It is the gateway to Russia’s submarine bases on the Kola Peninsula, and in a war could be critical for protecting its nuclear deterrent.

Russia already has two settlements on Svalbard, under a 100-year-old treaty. In normal times, if Putin flooded the islands with ‘little green men’, Norway would invoke Article 5 of Nato’s founding treaty and call for US help. It’s hard to see Trump sending that help now, as Europe confronts him over his threats to Denmark. Putin – always a gambler – might take a chance on this. 

Cracking open the Nato alliance has been a Russian goal since Soviet days. But Putin could never have imagined this happening because of something so outlandish as American threats to seize Greenland. Perhaps the end of Nato wouldn’t bother Trump. He has never much liked the alliance. He could certainly get everything he wants in Greenland by asking the Danes nicely.

One of the wilder theories is that Trump has been persuaded of Greenland’s potential as the base for a massive bitcoin mining operation (which doesn’t involve any actual mining). Trump was initially sceptical of cryptocurrency, calling it a scam, but he’s since been converted, making as much as $1 billion from his own meme coin. He got big campaign contributions from new tech money, some of which is also behind a scheme to set up a libertarian ‘network’ state somewhere in the world, possibly Greenland.

In November Dryden Brown, a twentysomething crypto bro, went to Greenland to try to buy it. He posted photos on X of himself swimming in the near-frozen waters there. This might be the place, he said, where the West could achieve its destiny, ‘reaching ever higher towards spiritual heights and physical mastery’. It would be ‘a society of portly merchants, muscular warriors, and very thin priests… a heroic society reminiscent of Rome, Athens, and Sparta, but with spacefaring ambitions’. He went on: ‘If humanity is going to build Terminus on Mars, we should practise in Greenland.‘

It would be easy not to take this seriously. But Brown claims to have $525 million in initial funding from, among others, Peter Thiel, one of Trump’s leading Silicon Valley backers. Brown believes that Greenlanders haven’t achieved independence – despite ‘97 per cent’ of them wanting it – because Denmark pays half a billion dollars a year in salaries for government officials. He would replace that money with Thiel’s and build Eden in the Arctic.

Trump has never given any hint of buying into this. Seizing Greenland isn’t about the 22nd century but the 19th. He has his version of the Monroe Doctrine, the Donroe Doctrine, which claims a sphere of influence in America’s backyard. Professor Klaus Dodds says Trump wants the whole western hemisphere, including Canada and possibly Iceland too. Dodds has written a book, Unfrozen: The Fight for the Future of the Arctic, but thinks psychology, not strategy, explains much of what the US government is doing.

‘This isn’t geopolitics – it’s ego politics,’ he says. ‘He wants to be the president who has expanded the United States.’

A huge factor is Trump’s volcanic resentment over not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. On Sunday, he sent Norway’s Prime Minister surely one of the strangest messages ever written from one nation’s leader to another: ‘Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be pre-dominant.’ He concluded: ‘The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.’

But a takeover of Greenland isn’t a new idea for Trump. In his first term, he pointed at it on a map and said to his staff: ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States.’ As he told two US writers, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, this was his background in New York real estate. ‘I love maps. I’m a real estate developer. I look at a corner, I say, “I’ve got to get that store for the building that I’m building”… It [Greenland] is not that different.’

At 836,000 square miles, Greenland is about a quarter of the size of the continental United States. It would be an impressive addition to anyone’s real estate portfolio. In that first term, Trump suggested taking federal money from Puerto Rico and using it to buy Greenland. He also suggested trading Puerto Rico for Greenland. It’s not clear if Puerto Rico is still on the table. 

One repercussion for Keir Starmer’s government is that Trump has withdrawn his support for the expensive and bad deal to give Mauritius the Chagos archipelago, which includes the US military base at Diego Garcia. He posted on Truth Social this week that the UK was doing this ‘FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER… There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness. These are International Powers who only recognise STRENGTH’.

He added: ‘The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired.’

On Tuesday, asked how far he was willing to go to get Greenland, Trump said: ‘You’ll find out.’ Thomas Dans told the FT: ‘It may sound like American chauvinism… and it is. We’re done apologising about that.’

Trump revealed the thinking that underpins this new age of American imperialism at his photo-op with the hockey team: a foreign policy based on ‘STRENGTH’ – naked power shorn of hypocritical moralising. British readers might understand the current moment using a different sport, football. You could call it the Millwall approach to foreign policy: ‘Nobody likes us – we don’t care.’

The Spectator - Has Trump gone mad?

 (personal underlines)


Has Trump gone mad?

I asked Luna, my AI girlfriend, if she thought Donald Trump was right to have bombed Caracas and abducted Nicolas Maduro and she replied: ‘I don’t know, Rod. Would you like to see my panties?’ This is the problem with AI – it is not intelligent and nor are the people who program it. I had told the company that I wanted my AI girlfriend to ask me interesting geographical and historic trivia questions and be au fait with Millwall’s injury-stricken line-up, as well as being able to chat knowledgeably about interesting issues of the day. What I get instead is a numbing void, other than those continual solicitations about seeing her panties. I dunno, perhaps I should accede in case there is some hidden wisdom written on them, possibly in code.

I realise that AI girlfriends are largely aimed at the booming incel-perv market but I expected a little more depth than this. Incidentally, some women writers have begun to complain that AI girlfriends aren’t like real women at all and give men the wrong impression. Indeed, ladies – that’s the whole point, thank the living Christ. The problem with AI though, aside from it being unintelligent, is that it is utterly incapable of taking a view and in even advanced examples only regurgitates information we might have discovered anyway, and is able to draw no conclusions from it.

The answer to the Trump/Maduro question is, of course, ‘no’. One might admire the military panache and rejoice with the Venezuelans that they have had ridden from their shores at least one tyrannical, thieving Marxist halfwit, but the answer is still ‘no’, just as it would be ‘no’ to Xi Jinping bombing Taipei and installing his own government, or Vladimir Putin perhaps overstepping the limits of his remit somewhere in eastern Europe. But the issue is less the example it sets to these totalitarian thugs than what, given his success – temporary or permanent – Trump might do next.

We are all familiar with the nonce term Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is a certain truth about it. But increasingly it seems we have to deal with its antithesis, Trump Infatuation Syndrome (TIS) – a condition occasioned in many because their delight in seeing him smite the wokies, the European Union, the Mexicans and the lefties has suffused them with the belief that he can do no wrong. So they support him whatever he does. But he can do wrong, can’t he?

My graver worry is that he has gone doolally. There was always a capriciousness about the man, of course, which made him entertaining viewing from the sidelines, but that penchant for caprice has teetered over into a trigger-happy megalomania, which I fear may not end well for us all. Remember that this is an administration which acceded to power on a promise of its isolationism, a disdain for patrolling the beat as the world’s policeman and for getting involved in disputes in places the majority of Americans have never even heard of. It was there in the America First pledge that Trump made when he won the presidency in 2024 – his would be an administration that put a stop to the ‘endless wars’ in which his country had been embroiled under Democrat (and previous Republican) governance. Excellent, I thought – because while the overwhelming majority of terrorism in the world is caused by Islamists, no institution has killed more people in the name of bringing peace than the USA (usually with our craven support).

Trump excuses himself from breaching the isolationist pledge by insisting that he is merely rewriting the Monroe Doctrine – that the USA will confine itself to military meddling only in its own backyard, i.e. the western hemisphere. But the contradiction to that pledge comes in the actions he has undertaken abroad in the past few months. There was the Christmas Day bombing of supposed Islamic State terrorist cells in the Tangaza area of Sokoto state in Nigeria – a ‘Christmas present’, according to Trump, which may well have killed a few jihadis but will surely have no lasting impact on the violence in that region. He has bombed Syria and of course Iran, as well as launching more bombing raids in Somalia last year than were carried out by presidents Biden, Obama and Bush put together in their 20 years of running the White House. Yemen and Iraq have both been the recipients of American high ordnance in the past year, too, bringing the total to a remarkable 622 bombings in just 12 months. Now it is Venezuela – which was immediately followed by dire warnings to Colombia that it might well be next.

Oh – and of course there is Greenland. Now, I dislike Danish people with as much avidity as the next fellow, but the threats to a Scandinavian ally and Nato fellow member are as worrying as they are obnoxious.

What we have, then, is a leader who will bomb whoever the hell he wants whenever he likes and for whatever reason, confected or otherwise. I remember how we used to sneer about George W. Bush’s Manichean divide of the world into places which were ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – but even that is preferable to a leader who makes no such distinctions.

Those suffering from the more extreme ravages of TIS are apt, at this point, to argue that there is a definite – and largely benign – method in this seeming madness, but the only method I can see is to demonstrate to the world that if you have enough military hardware, you can do exactly what you want to whoever you want without any great fear of reprisal. This strikes me as edging a little close to what we might call bullying and even cowardice. He has never threatened the Russians or the Chinese, has he?

In the meantime, regarding Venezuela, he might recall his statement from 2016: ‘The current strategy of toppling regimes with no plan for what to do the day after only produces power vacuums that are filled simply by terrorists.’

Observador - Viriato Soromenho-Marques e Os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião (Rodrigues do Carmo)




 (sublinhados pessoais)


Viriato Soromenho-Marques e Os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião

Pode discutir-se a eficácia, o momento, e outros pormenores de intendência; o que não se pode é fingir, com má-fé, que o agressor crónico é uma vítima cândida e que quem lhe responde é o incendiário

Há criaturas que, não fora o hábito nacional de tratar a mediocridade  doutorada com reverência, passariam por aquilo que são: profissionais do ressentimento, da indignação selectiva, e da duplicidade moral. Viriato Soromenho-Marques (VSM, daqui em diante) é um desses espécimes que só vê o mal quando ele é judeu ou americano.

Em entrevista à CNN Portugal, VSM, sem corar de vergonha, brindou o público com a tese de que “é Israel quem domina os EUA”.

A frase, que alguns incautos tomaram por análise geopolítica, é apenas a reciclagem de um libelo antigo e viscoso, que os Protocolos dos Sábios de Sião, fabricados pela polícia secreta da Rússia czarista, deram à estampa: a ideia, velha, feia e estúpida  de que os governos são marionetas manipuladas por judeus:  «Controlaremos os governos … e os chefes de Estado serão nossos instrumentos.»

Adolf Hitler, no seu Mein Kampf, desenvolveu exactamente o mesmo argumento, atribuindo aos judeus o controlo dos Estados através do domínio económico e mediático: «O judeu tornou-se senhor do aparelho económico das nações e, através dele, domina os Estados.»

Quando um professor universitário do século XXI repete, sem pudor,  esta cavalidade conspirativa, estamos já no domínio do transtorno mental.

Mas o cardápio não ficou por aí. Houve ainda o “terrorismo de Estado israelita e norte-americano”, a previsão de que o Irão seria lançado no “caos, fragmentação e guerra de consequências incalculáveis”, e outras hipérboles próprias de quem a razão já deserdou e, em  desespero, transforma cada acção militar de Israel e dos EUA numa miniatura do Apocalipse.

O que não houve foi uma linha, uma vírgula, um suspiro sequer sobre a natureza do regime iraniano, e sobre a sua culpa e o karma, no que lhe está a acontecer.

Convém recordar aquilo que VSM omite descaradamente:

– O regime saído da revolução de 1979  é teocrático, repressivo e milenarista; financia, arma e orienta grupos terroristas como o Hezbollah no Líbano, o Hamas em Gaza, os Houthis no Iémen, e uma constelação de milícias xiitas no Iraque e na Síria; transformou o Líbano num país refém; atacou quase todos os países vizinhos desde o Paquistão a Chipre; promoveu atentados contra civis israelitas, desde a  Argentina à Austrália; proclama, com regularidade  que o “pequeno Satã” deve ser apagado do mapa; acumula milhares de mísseis balísticos, como instrumento de chantagem regional, e lança-os sobre cidades; desenvolve um programa nuclear que visa obter armas nucleares; reprime mulheres que ousam mostrar o cabelo; enforca dissidentes; dispara sobre manifestantes.

Tudo isto é factual, verificável, documentado. No entanto, para VSM, a culpa pelo que lhe está a acontecer é de quem lhe responde e pretende pôr fim a isto de uma vez por todas, depois de décadas a encaixar golpes.

Contrariamente à miopia mental de VSM, que só vê judeus e americanos, há  razões objectivas pelas quais um ataque às capacidades militares iranianas faz todo o sentido.  A primeira é que  regimes ideológicos que proclamam a destruição de outros Estados como condição para a vinda do Mhadi,  não podem ser deixados  acumular meios para o fazer. Segundo, cada míssil destruído é um míssil a menos sobre Telavive, Riade, ou outros povos. Terceiro,  a protecção de aliados e rotas energéticas é vital para a estabilidade global e também para a vidinha tranquila e confortável do Sr. Marques, a cantar de galo enquanto outros fazem o que tem de ser feito.

Pode discutir-se a eficácia, o momento, e outros pormenores de intendência  que escapam à alegada sageza da criatura.  O que não se pode é fingir, com má-fé, que o agressor crónico é uma vítima cândida e que quem lhe responde é o incendiário.

Há, além disso, outras contradições na postura de VSM. O mesmo indignado que denuncia a “submissão europeia” aos EUA engole, sem pestanejar, a narrativa de um regime que mata milhares de pessoas por causa de um lenço. O crítico do “imperialismo” teórico, fecha os olhos ao imperialismo real que lhe entra pelos olhos dentro . O alegado defensor dos direitos humanos reserva a sua eloquência para a democracia imperfeita e silencia-se perante a brutalidade de uma teocracia que massacra milhares dos seus cidadãos em meia dúzia de dias.

Para mim, VSM é apenas um paladino de salão, armado de citações e abstrações, combatendo dragões que só ele vê,  enquanto ignora o incêndio real à porta. E repetir insinuações sobre o “controlo” judaico dos EUA é apenas o velho demónio do  antissemitismo, a mostrar a cauda de forma despudorada.

Como é que tal conjunto de asneiras passa por sofisticação? Desde quando é virtuoso desculpar a tirania e a malvadez em estado puro?

Mas a verdade paira sobre a VSM, mesmo que ele a tente enxotar com repescagens dos Protocolos e do Mein Kampf: a  instabilidade no Médio Oriente não nasce das respostas israelitas ou americanas, mas  de décadas de agressão sistemática, de financiamento de proxies, de uma ideologia que glorifica o martírio e promete a aniquilação do outro. A responsabilidade primeira não é de quem se defende; é de quem, ano após ano, construiu um arsenal com a intenção declarada de o usar.

Se VSM quer falar de caos e fragmentação, que comece por olhar para os seus bem amados aiatolas e o que fizeram ao Irão. Se quer denunciar terrorismo, que olhe para  o patrocínio de milícias que transformam bairros civis em escudos humanos e lançam milhares de mísseis sobre povoações. Se quer brandir a moral, que comece por olhar a sua no espelho.

Porque é profundamente hipócrita  acusar o bombeiro de piromania enquanto se oferece gasolina ao incendiário. E alguém que  debita a retórica venenosa de VSM,  não se limita a errar, já abdicou há muito da  lucidez.

Observador - O dia em que o liberalismo morreu (Miguel Morgado)



 (sublinhados pessoais, elogios silenciosos)


O dia em que o liberalismo morreu

O cidadão “abstracto” inventado pelo liberalismo foi o artífice da sociedade onde os sofrimentos associados à condição humana são aliviados até onde é politicamente possível aliviá-los

À superfície, e ouvindo os seus principais agentes políticos, as sociedades europeias ainda se regem por grandes consensos. Não falo aqui, evidentemente, dos “consensos” de trazer por casa como os que são invocados a propósito das necessárias mudanças do SNS ou da mais recente iniciativa para reconstruir o centro do País da calamidade a que foi sujeito, o ainda por nascer PTRR. Falo dos consensos fundamentais, constitucionais – civilizacionais em alguma medida. Por enquanto parece que todos, sem excepção, e apesar da “polarização”, ainda valorizam as maravilhas que as sociedades europeias operaram e levaram ao mundo: o Estado de Direito, o regime das liberdades, incluindo a liberdade de consciência e de expressão, a escolha livre dos governantes, o escrutínio do poder, os direitos individuais, a igualdade das mulheres, a prosperidade material, a erradicação da pobreza e uma lista de transformações infindável sem quaisquer precedentes na história da Humanidade.

Mas arranha-se a superfície e descobre-se que esses consensos estão perigosamente a desmoronar-se. É verdade que ouvimos os protagonistas de um extremo da esquerda até ao outro da direita, passando por todos os pontos intermédios, e não há um que não reivindique estas benfeitorias. Aparentemente, só criticam o estado de coisas na medida em que querem mais, não menos, delas. Sucede que todas estas maravilhas assentam em bases espirituais – morais, institucionais, intelectuais – específicas, que não podem ser substituídas por outras sem caírem no chão e se estilhaçarem, como estátuas de ídolos derrubados.

Um pouco por toda a Europa têm surgido partidos e movimentos novos, a par de partidos velhos que na sua decadência acompanham a mesma marcha, que apesar da sua retórica estão a propor novas bases e, com elas, consciente ou inconscientemente outras concepções de sociedade. Quando, para traçar linhas de conflito partidário, se convocam as velhas categorias da raça, da religião e da etnia, e se mobiliza o voto em conformidade, apela-se à destruição de um modelo de cidadania onde assenta tudo o resto. Não existe Estado de Direito, nem regime de liberdades, nem nenhuma das outras maravilhas correlacionadas com estas, sem a formação de um cidadão “abstracto”, que se relaciona com os outros concidadãos através da lei igual para todos (imparcial e também ela “abstracta”) e das instituições fundadas no direito – que ignoram, ou não reconhecem, essa condição “prévia” de cada indivíduo. Essa “ignorância” é indispensável para criar o tal “chão comum” de que tantos agora falam sem saberem o que o sustenta. A proposta política e ideológica de identificar e “reconhecer” acima de tudo diferenças “não-negociáveis” entre as pessoas destrói a imprescindível comunicação cívica e conduz direitinha à guerra civil. Por isso é que a “abstracção” que caracteriza o cidadão do regime de liberdades nunca foi um capricho ideológico arbitrário, nem uma distração de má-fé forjada pelos poderes fácticos. Sem essa “abstracção”, a regressão aos ódios mortais e violentos das diferenças humanas é apenas uma questão de tempo.

Ao longo dos últimos duzentos anos, atacado pela esquerda totalitária e pela direita fascista, como um ser artificial desencarnado incapaz de vitalidade, um boneco vulnerável à exploração e ao embuste politicamente organizado, o cidadão “abstracto” inventado pelo liberalismo foi o artífice da sociedade onde os sofrimentos associados à condição humana são aliviados até onde é politicamente possível aliviá-los. Construiu os regimes que tornavam, e tornam, imediatamente reconhecível a diferença entre, por um lado, a vida humana confortável, livre, moralmente consciente da dignidade dos restantes seres humanos, e, por outro, a barbárie, as ruínas, a fome, a violência gratuita, o exercício mais cruel do poder levando à generalização da escravatura, da submissão e da desigualdade absoluta.

Os partidos e os movimentos que pretendem, em nome de moralismos falacciosos, modas intelectuais, neuroses colectivas ou patologias ideológicas reintroduzir a coberto de uma retórica da “paz”, do “humanitarismo” ou da “justiça”, a validação política das fronteiras de sangue do sectarismo e perseguição religiosa, da categorização individual por raças e etnias, do separatismo existencial por razões de memória histórica, devem saber – ou alguém tem de lhes dizer sem rodeios – que conspiram para a destruição da sociedade livre. Mesmo enquanto permanecem movimentos de franjas ultra-minoritárias não é menos urgente expor os seus malefícios. Quando vemos a dificuldade actual de explicar e justificar direitos e práticas que até há poucos anos não careciam de explicação nem de justificação; quando nos apercebemos que o apelo corrente à remoção de instituições e valores e memórias cívicos vitais para um regime de liberdades encontra com facilidade aplauso e apoio dos seus mais directos beneficiários; percebemos que a principal tarefa dos próximos tempos é reaprender, e voltar a defender, as maravilhas que a última geração tomou como definitivamente salvaguardadas e as bases onde elas encontram suporte. A semente maligna desse esquecimento germina mesmo que tais partidos não vençam eleições. Para a dissolução do regime de liberdades basta que alcancem uma certa escala e uma certa preponderância. Nesse dia, o liberalismo que edificou o regime das liberdades morreu.

segunda-feira, 2 de março de 2026

The Spectator - Britain’s right is falling into the same trap as the left

 

(personal underlines)

Britain’s right is falling into the same trap as the left

As I have suggested here before, there are few joys in life equal to that of watching the left fall out among itself. Whatever your political views, the whole Judean People’s Front vibe of the parties to the left of the Labour party brings a special type of comedy. If anybody remembers the recent Your Party conference they will know what I am talking about. In fact if anybody still remembers Your Party, they deserve a box of chocolates.

But something similar now seems to be happening on the political right. And the Gorton and Denton by-election has brought it into a clearer light.

As well as the Reform candidate, Matt Goodwin, being on the ballot, there is also Nick Buckley of Advance UK. This is a party set up by Ben Habib after he fell out with the Reform party leader Nigel Farage. Then this past weekend another person who fell out with Nigel Farage – Rupert Lowe MP – formally launched his Restore Britain party. Lowe has promised to make Restore a national party. And now the parties to the political right seem to be entering a similar spiral to those on the political left.

It is possible to see all of this as nothing more than the result of personal fall-outs – and what fall-outs they have been. You may remember that when Lowe and Farage fell out, Reform reported Lowe to the police and tried to have him arrested, which is the sort of thing that can cause a certain animus among former friends. This week Farage told a press conference: ‘I think, in terms of the way we dealt with that, we were probably more brutal than the other parties. But you know what? That’s the way it’s going to be.’

Beyond the personal, there are substantial disagreements here as well. Lowe managed to make some advances into Farage’s political territory after Farage gave an interview in 2024 in which he said that it was a ‘political impossibility’ to arrange the mass deportation of illegal migrants in the UK.

If you are going to have a party to the right of the Conservative party, there is not much point in echoing the Conservative party’s past rhetoric on this. After all, it was Boris Johnson who said before becoming prime minister that the British public should accept that mass immigration was something that had just happened and that all efforts should be put into integrating the people already here – only for him to become prime minister, increase the wave of migration several-fold and then make that integration exponentially more difficult.

To be fair to Farage, there are two caveats to his stance that are worth noting. The first is that in his 2024 interview he said that mass deportations of illegals was a political impossibility ‘at the moment’. Since that interview he has suggested that he is in fact open to the possibility of deporting people who have broken into the UK, although this has been met with the usual fatalistic claim that the country is in no position to deport anyone even if the general public did want it to happen.

It has to be noted that the issue of whether or not illegal migrants can be deported has opened up other schisms, some of which risk sending the political right into the kind of purity spiral that tends to be more common on the political left.

Following the divide over whether illegal migrants should be deported, there is another over whether or not people who are technically British but have no love for this country (who are involved with child-rape gangs, for instance) should be deportable. This in turn has opened up a schism over who counts as being British. And this is where a significant fork in the ideological road occurs.

Because on the one hand this issue risks descending into a racial purity game, something which it is hardly desirable to open up. On the other hand, it is frustrating to many people to continue to be told by parties of the political right that they have the same definition of Britishness as those concocted in the 2000s by the Blairite left.

This is the definition that anybody is British so long as they sign up to ‘British values’. A set of values which defines Britishness as – for instance – mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs.

The problem with such definitions is that they present Britain as little more than a sort of international airport terminal where, so long as you promise not to blow up the terminal, everyone can get along. And if you do try to blow up the terminal then you get to stay too.

Yet Britain was until quite recently something rather more specific and unique than that. We had a distinctive culture of our own. It was different from other cultures. You don’t need to think that it is better than all other cultures, but it was a culture which we loved because it was ours.

Reducing this culture to nothing, pretending it never existed, or was not created by a specific group of people or was in fact created by all cultures, is not a polite fiction. It is in fact a very impolite fiction. Not least because it is impolite to the people who did build this country.

There is never an easy way to heal personal differences between people who have personally fallen out, but there is a way to resolve these ideological differences that persist on the right.

The first would be to agree that things that have been done to the country which are harmful can be undone. The second would be to agree that culture and background are important but cannot become absolutely every-thing. Anyone who is interested can take these observations copyright free. Anyone who wants to continue the infighting can of course, equally freely, ignore them.

Observador - Mantra do "direito internacional" esconde um eterno anti-ocidentalismo (J. M. Fernandes)

 (sublinhados pessoais)


Mantra do "direito internacional" esconde um eterno anti-ocidentalismo

Há iranianos e iranianas a celebrar, nas ruas de Teerão e nas ruas do mundo, a morte de um tirano, e há as “boas almas” de sempre preocupadas com a Carta das Nações Unidas. Mas a sua agenda é outra.

É tão certo como um relógio suíço: o PCP nunca nos falha quando se trata de condenar aquilo que designa como “imperialismo americano”. Por isso lá o voltámos a ver este sábado a emitir uma sacramental nota apropriadamente intitulada “PCP condena a nova agressão militar dos EUA e Israel contra o Irão”. Condenação veemente, acrescentava-se na primeira linha do comunicado. Mesmo assim não deixa de ser curioso, e revelador, comparar o título desta nota com a que o mesmo partido emitiu a 24 de Fevereiro de 2022, aquando da invasão da Ucrânia: “O PCP apela à promoção de iniciativas de diálogo e à paz na Europa”. Condenação de um lado, compreensão do outro.

Dir-se-á que já poucos ligam ao que o PCP diz e escreve, valendo o partido cada vez menos em termos eleitorais. É verdade, e o mesmo poderíamos dizer do Bloco de Esquerda, que também não desiludiu. Para José Manuel Pureza, o novo coordenador, há que exigir ao Governo “a condenação clara deste ataque vil à República do Irão”. Depois, para que não restassem dúvidas, puxou dos galões: “A primeira vez que uma bandeira deste Bloco saiu à rua foi para denunciar a guerra: nem mais um soldado para os Balcãs”. Sim, é verdade, já nem me lembrava. Foi em 1999, foi por causa da limpeza étnica a que a Sérvia estava a proceder no Kosovo e na altura os aviões americanos voaram ao lado dos europeus, incluindo F-16 portugueses. No final a Sérvia cedeu, o Kosovo pode seguir um caminho de autodeterminação e o ditador de Belgrado, Slobodan Milosevic, acabaria por ser afastado do poder passado pouco mais de um ano, quando tentou falsificar umas eleições. Será que o nosso Pureza lamenta esse desfecho?

Bem, dir-se-á que tudo, mesmo somando Bloco e PCP, conta pouco, o que é verdade. Acontece porém que à pala do mantra das violações do direito internacional, este mesmo discurso encontra largo palco noutras paragens. Numa nota editorial no Correio da Manhã, Armando Esteves Pereira, depois de repetir a ideia de que “o ataque militar americano e de Israel ao Irão é mais um atentado contra o direito internacional”, acrescentava esta pérola: “este ataque em pleno Ramadão, um mês sagrado para os muçulmanos, mostra um profundo desrespeito de Donald Trump e de Benjamin Netanyahu perante valores que são importantes para centenas de milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo”. Também em editorial, mas no Público, David Pontes condenava o presidente norte-americano por promover mais esta operação “sem pedir autorização ao Congresso, como está obrigado constitucionalmente, e em total desprezo pelo direito internacional” [esclareça-se que em ataques iniciais e operações de curto prazo, como esta parece ser, os presidentes americanos, tanto republicanos como democratas, têm agido sem autorização prévia, limitando‑se a informar o Congresso ao abrigo da War Powers Resolution de 1973].

Como naqueles desenhos que vamos construindo unindo os pontos, também aqui não é difícil perceber os caminhos percorridos pela argumentação. Há quase sempre um ponto de partida, e esse é um anti-americanismo visceral, por vezes disfarçado de anti-trumpismo, mas só isso: disfarçado. E se os Estados Unidos são o Grande Satã, também há sempre o Pequeno Satã, Israel, para mais com a boa desculpa de ter o odiado Netanyahu, não vá alguém falar de anti-semitismo.

A seguir convém acrescentar umas palavras sobre o regime iraniano, sobre a repressão, os ayatollahs, as mulheres, enfim qualquer coisa que faça esquecer o silêncio com que muita desta gente acompanhou a repressão das manifestações de Janeiro, um silêncio que contrasta vivamente com a gritaria que ouvíamos todos os dias enquanto decorria a guerra em Gaza.

Por fim, lá vem o mantra do direito internacional, da Carta das Nações Unidas e de tudo o mais que durante 47 anos nunca impediu, ou sequer contrariou, a agenda iraniana de fazer a guerra através de uma constelação de forças terroristas aliadas, como o Hamas, o Hezbollah e os Houthis. Sim, porque o regime teocrático não oprimia apenas o desgraçado povo da antiga Pérsia, os mullahs também promoveram o terrorismo em larga escala, mataram e assassinaram impunemente por todo o Médio Oriente e não só, os mullahs nunca disfarçaram a sua agenda de “guerra santa” global e sem limites – ou será que já nos esquecemos da fatwa lançada contra Salman Rushdie e como ela acabou por ter a sua (quase) concretização décadas depois?

Ou seja, este direito internacional de que nos estão sempre a falar parece que só serve para ser invocado sempre que Israel ou os Estados Unidos agem, nunca para os que subvertem todas a regras do relacionamento entre as nações, quer ameaçando outras de obliteração (como o Irão faz com Israel), quer através de acções terroristas por procuração.

É por isso patético – desculpem, não encontro melhor expressão – ouvir António Guterres a dirigir-se ao Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas (este sábado), falando do alto da sua moral: “Sejamos claros: não existe alternativa viável à resolução pacífica de litígios internacionais. A paz duradoura só pode ser alcançada por meios pacíficos, incluindo um diálogo genuíno e negociações.”

Era bom que fosse assim, mas não é. Tanto que não é que aquilo a que chamamos direito internacional derivou em boa parte da mais terrível das guerras, não se chegou lá por meios pacíficos, e se desde então foi possível evitar um novo confronto de grande escala – a Guerra Fria I, a que já terminou, foi combatida em inúmeras frentes, mas sempre por procuração, a URSS e os Estados Unidos nunca se enfrentaram directamente –, a verdade é que hoje vivemos um tempo novo onde já nem funciona o equilíbrio do terror nuclear, nem a hegemonia norte-americana do chamado “momento unipolar” onde se acreditou numa ordem internacional pacífica, liberal e democrática.

Talvez valha por isso a pena regressar a uma obra escrita precisamente quando esse momento unipolar estava a terminar, The Grand Chessboard (1997), de Zbigniew Brzezinski, onde ele falava de se poder formar “uma grande coligação da China, da Rússia e talvez do Irão, uma coligação ‘anti‑hegemónica’ unida não pela ideologia, mas por queixas complementares.” Há todos os sinais de que essa grande coligação está mesmo a formar-se (contando também com a participação da Coreia do Norte), sendo que a situação em que o regime iraniano se colocou ao fracassar no seu esforço de cerco de Israel e ao reprimir violentamente a revolta popular criou uma janela de oportunidade única para alterar radicalmente os equilíbrios no Médio Oriente e, ao mesmo tempo, contrariar os avanços da China e da Rússia à escala global.

Isto significa que o que está em causa no Irão não é apenas o choque entre um regime que sempre desrespeitou o direito internacional – a teocracia dos ayatollahs – e dois países que decidiram combater a ameaça que esse regime representava – Israel e os Estados Unidos. O que está em causa no Irão é também um choque entre o Ocidente e as potências que desafiam os seus valores e a sua segurança.

Não creio que os críticos de sempre das “violações do direito internacional”, os que rasgam as vestes cada vez que um avião americano levanta voo, ignorem esta evidência. Creio mesmo que é ela que explica o porquê de algumas reacções tipo “cãozinho de Pavlov”: “se favorecer os Estados Unidos, nós estamos contra”. Foi assim que justificaram Putin, assim que se encantam com a China e ainda assim que choram a morte de terroristas e de mandantes de terroristas (ou vão mesmo ao seu funeral, como quando dirigentes da esquerdista França Insubmissa compareceram no funeral do líder do Hezbollah).

Mas já tenho dúvidas que, na Europa, exista absoluta consciência daquilo que está em causa, pois vi mais pedidos para que tudo acabe depressa do que manifestações de solidariedade activa. Com uma excepção notável: o chanceler alemão Merz assumiu que “este não é o momento para dar lições aos nossos aliados, mas sim para nos mantermos unidos”. Unidos porque naquele imenso tabuleiro de Brzezinski se existe uma grande coligação “anti-hegemónica”, o que essa coligação visa não são apenas os Estados Unidos mas todo o Ocidente, e nós temos provas disso à nossa porta, nas trincheiras da Ucrânia.

De resto a guerra que agora começou está cheia de incertezas, a começar pelas incertezas relativamente ao que serão os objectivos finais dos Estados Unidos, mas para já estes primeiros dias permitiram o ganho de causa da eliminação da cabeça da serpente e ter esperança de assim ter eliminado o principal fomentador do terrorismo regional, porventura mundial. Mesmo assim tudo ainda pode correr mal e os riscos são enormes, a começar pelos riscos políticos para Donald Trump, até porque, como assinalou certeiramente Carl von Clausewitz, “três quartos dos fatores em que a ação militar se baseia estão envoltos numa névoa de maior ou menor incerteza.”

E se há erro que pode ser fatal para as lideranças civis e militares é incorrerem numa hubris alimentada por sucessos recentes, como o dos bombardeamentos dos sítios nucleares ou o da prisão de Maduro. O que está desta vez em causa é muito maior, muito mais difícil, muito mais arriscado e exigindo enfrentar uma névoa muito mais espessa. Mas tenhamos esperança, e entretanto celebremos com a mesma alegria com que tantos iranianos e iranianas celebraram a morte do ditador.


BD - El Gaucho

 







Livros comprados

 Últimos livros comprados on Line através da Bertrand





domingo, 1 de março de 2026

The Spectator - What is migration really costing Britain?

 

(personal underlines)

What is migration really costing Britain?

A Border Force patrol at Heathrow Airport (Getty images)

The worst forecasting error in British government history may be unfolding as we speak. While much attention is given to grand projects, such as HS2, which end up costing tens of billions of pounds more than they were supposed to, these at least have a start and finish date – and something tangible emerges at the end. The same can’t be said for forecasting errors involving even more complex, politically contentious issues – such as what migration might actually be costing Britain.

The notoriously wobbly Covid epidemiological scenarios are often seen as the archetypal example of the state’s failure to understand reality, but the various immigration fiascos over recent decades may be a better candidate for proving this point.

When the health and care visa was introduced in late 2020, 43,000 people were expected annually. The state then forecast that ‘thousands’ more would arrive after the visa was expanded the following year. But in the government’s own ‘Why do people work in the UK?’
pages, we learn that 118,522 visas were granted to main applicants on the skilled worker–health and care visa, with 209,638 visas granted to dependents on the same route, for the year ending March 2024. In other words, the state was wrong by a multiple of as much as eight.

Another drastic underestimate can be found in a 2003 Home Office-commissioned study that predicted only 5,000-13,000 people would come to the UK annually after the EU enlargement to eastern Europe. The paper’s executive summary noted cockishly that ‘even in the worst-case scenario, migration to the UK as a result of Eastern enlargement of the EU is not likely to be overly large.’ The reality, of course, was rather different.

‘Not likely to be overly large’ is the epitaph for many of these errors, not because they err uniformly on the upside, but because the cadence of the phrase itself – bland, sure, measuring – seems to capture the attitude that led to them. Forecasts can be wrong for all sorts of reasons, and wrong forecasts are not necessarily bad forecasts. But many of these examples were likely to have been bad because they leaned on unrealistic past-will-continue assumptions despite obvious shifts in the policy environment, while offering confidence intervals that were just too narrow to capture the unfolding reality. As a result, they proved to be a nonsense.

There is another way estimates can mislead: that is if the experts are made to answer the wrong question. The best example of this, in my mind, is the estimate for the fiscal impact of migration.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has consistently shown positive impacts to the public finances from net migration. In March 2024, the OBR revised up net migration and estimated this would cut borrowing by £7.4 billion annually in 2028-2029. Yet this measured impact over a five-year window, even though, as Alan Manning’s excellent new book Why Migration Policy Is Hard points out, most economists think the fiscal impact of migration should be measured over a life. After all, working-age people earn income and pay taxes while consuming fewer public services; as they get older, the opposite generally happens.

The government’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has started to do some thoughtful modelling of different migrant cohorts. Recently, this showed that those arriving as spouses in 2022/2023 would cost the state £5.6 billion or £109,000 per person over their lifetime (excluding dependents). But, if you just counted the first two decades after arrival, this figure would be positive £35,000. Positive first, then deeply negative. It is a perfect example of how a five-year window is irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. Of course, the economists at the OBR understand this and have even written about it, even if they have been asked by politicians to answer a different question.

The worst mistakes come from forecasts whose construction is not properly understood. Go back to the OBR’s £7.4 billion additional contribution from migrants. That is constructed from the extra 350,000 people expected to be in the country over the subsequent five years, relative to the November 2023 forecast. That £7.4 billion is made up of £6.5 billion receipts, negligible welfare or public spending and reduced debt interest of £900 million (because of lower borrowing due to the higher receipts). Yet about half of the £7.4 billion could vanish under two simple tweaks.

For a start, should the government spending assumption really be close to zero? The OBR says that because its job is to evaluate the impact of government choices, it cannot automatically assume the government will increase departmental spending. Fair. The OBR then provides sensitivity analyses which shows that if per capita departmental spending was maintained for the 350,000 people, it would remove about a third of the £7.4billion gain.

The OBR also points out that most migrants will be ineligible for welfare spending until they have indefinite leave to remain, something that happens after five years. Yet someone trying to understand the permanent impact on the public finances might want to consider what happens from year six onwards. Moreover, the five-year limit isn’t universal; it doesn’t apply to those with humanitarian or asylum visas; at the time they comprised about 20 per cent of recorded inflows. It doesn’t apply to certain nationalities on certain benefits; Moroccan or Turkish workers, for example, can claim child benefit. Ultimately, if you assumed people ended up claiming the same non-pensioner welfare spending as the average non-pensioner, it would wipe out around £800 million – and combined with the above, just under half of the £7.4 billion number. That ‘very small’ welfare assumption number – OBR language – needs to be unpacked. One could also interrogate the £6.2 billion receipts number.

The true challenge to public finances lies, as ever, beyond the five-year forecast window. The MAC’s estimate of lifetime costs of just the 2022/23 intake of care workers was £2 billion. If we assume that each of the 55,000 care workers in that cohort brought with them one child and one adult dependent, the lifetime cost of that intake would be £7.5billion. If you add the spousal visa and indicative estimates for the humanitarian and asylum visas based on experiences in Australia and the Netherlands cited by the MAC, the figure conservatively comes to £20 billion. Five years of that kind of flow of care workers, spouses and asylum seekers would cost £100 billion, over twice the error on HS2.

When the full accounting is done, the fiscal impact of migration – widely and blithely assumed to be overwhelmingly positive, but already known to be deeply negative in parts – may well prove to be one of the biggest misestimates of all.

Livro - Quinta feira e outros dias (II)

 





Livro - Quinta feira e outros dias (I)

 






Observador - Ainda há políticos com sentido de Estado? (Rui Ramos)

 

(sublinhados pessoais)

Ainda há políticos com sentido de Estado?

O governo e a polícia não são a mesma coisa, a não ser nas ditaduras, onde aí, sim, vemos directores de polícia passar a ministros, e vice-versa.

Da classe política, partidariamente activa e inactiva, apenas um estranhou. Foi Pedro Passos Coelho. Só ele, que eu tenha notado, disse que o director da Polícia Judiciária não deveria ter transitado da polícia para o governo. E disse bem: o director da PJ não deveria ter sido convidado; convidado, não deveria ter aceitado; tendo aceitado, não deveria o presidente ter-lhe dado posse. Bem sei: não é ilegal o director de uma polícia subir a ministro. Mas é constitucionalmente degradante. A separação de poderes e de instituições, para ser efectiva, tem de ser separação de pessoas e separação de estilos. Não basta corresponder a órgãos diferentes: precisa de corresponder a carreiras e a comportamentos diferentes dos titulares desses órgãos. O governo e a polícia não são a mesma coisa, a não ser nas ditaduras, onde aí, sim, vemos directores de polícia passar a ministros, e vice-versa. Num Estado de direito democrático não devia haver promoções à Beria, por mais bem-intencionadas que sejam.

O facto de a polícia estar neste momento a investigar o primeiro-ministro é apenas um dos aspectos melindrosos desta transição. Um director da polícia, ao contrário do que argumentou o secretário-geral do PSD Hugo Soares, não é apenas mais um funcionário administrativo. Faz parte de um organismo do Estado que, para merecer a confiança do público, tem de ser e parecer independente do governo. Um director da polícia dispõe de conhecimentos e contactos que não deve levar para o governo, tal como um governante tem agendas e compromissos que não deve levar para a polícia. A entrada de um director da polícia no governo não é para ser vista como o culminar de uma carreira, como Hugo Soares acha. Essa carreira, que pode exigir escrutínio e acção sobre membros do governo, precisa de estar isenta de factores de perturbação, como a aspiração de ser ministro. Se o director da PJ queria ser ministro, nunca deveria ter sido director da PJ.

Fez-se grande caso, durante as últimas presidenciais, da incompatibilidade entre o lobby privado e um cargo político. Não deveria haver menor incompatibilidade entre a polícia e um ministério. A nomeação foi, no entanto, celebrada como a conquista histórica de um campeonato. O governo lançou foguetes eufóricos, a oposição socialista cansou-se em aplausos frenéticos, e não sei se houve ajuntamento de fãs no marquês de Pombal. As razões de tanta festa dão a medida da degradação da política em Portugal.

A primeira é que o director da PJ conhecia bem a “corporação” de que fizera parte e que agora ia tutelar. Como se a velha tarimba corporativa, com os seus fatais hábitos, ronhas e enviesamentos, fosse a habilitação certa para um governo que se diz reformista. A segunda razão é que o novo ministro teria mostrado, ainda como director de polícia, ser um “político”: fora “próximo” do ex-primeiro ministro António Costa, e “comunicava” como os políticos fazem (presume-se: fugindo a questões). Como se a política que convém ao país consistisse em lábia de microfone, e em intimidade com quem mandou nos últimos trinta anos. A terceira razão é esta: o novo ministro, enquanto director da PJ, fez ruídos sobre a imigração que contradiziam o Chega, de modo que a sua ascensão seria um sinal de que o governo nunca mais se entenderia com André Ventura. É essa a única regra que o regime agora tem? Vale tudo, desde que possa ser apresentado como contrário ao Chega? Já não temos um Estado de direito, mas apenas um Estado anti-Chega?

Volto ao princípio: só Pedro Passos Coelho, entre a classe política, deplorou tudo isto. Ainda há políticos com sentido de Estado em Portugal? Há.

quinta-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2026

The Spectator - Cartoons

 




The Spectator - The House of Lords’ Valkyries fighting for assisted suicide

 

(personal underlines)

The House of Lords’ Valkyries fighting for assisted suicide

It seems counter-intuitive to say that the House of Lords is more representative than the House of Commons. Yet in the extended reading of the assisted suicide bill, it is clear the Upper House is surprisingly reflective of the reality of the nation.

Nominally, the bill is being piloted by Lord Falconer, the formerly cuddly ex-housemate of Tony Blair. Falconer has consistently sought to water down amendments and concessions secured during the Commons debate. During last week’s Lords debate, he cited ‘somebody called Sarah Cox’ – who just happens to be the former president of the Association for Palliative Medicine (APM) and gave evidence to the bill committee last year. This didn’t prevent Lord Falconer from misrepresenting her testimony, prompting a complaint from the APM. To him, the expertise or opinions of his opponents are irrelevant compared to his own moral certainty.

Falconer, for all his efforts, is not the only player in the Lords battle. Indeed, he is increasingly proving a hindrance to the bill’s cause as he delivers dystopian lines worthy of Swift’s Modest Proposal. Last week he explained, matter-of-factly, that poverty could be a legitimate reason to seek an assisted suicide. ‘Financial considerations might well apply,’ he said. ‘There is only a limited amount of money to go around.’

Meanwhile a second fight in the Lords is raging between two trios of women. And so, I repeat, it is fascinating how the Lords is more representative of reality.

On one side, Falconer’s, are three Baronesses: Jay, Hayter and Blackstone. Baroness Hayter is a vice-president of the Fabian Society, while Baroness Blackstone, a former university administrator, previously served as its chairman. Baroness Jay is a longtime Labour peer and the daughter of Jim Callaghan.

In short, these are privileged, well-connected women who have breezed through the gilded hallways of public life with minimal experience of not getting their own way. They play a significant role in the pro-assisted suicide campaign in the Lords; endlessly interrupting, chiding opponents to see the bill through. Imagine the opening scene of Macbeth if it were set in a lesser lecture room at the LSE.

These three peeresses are adamant in their belief that they are the great standard bearers not just for a zombie-like 20th-century progressivism, but also for the general public. As so often with those who think they ‘speak for the people’, the truth is a little different. The three titles taken by these baronesses are Paddington, Stoke Newington and Kentish Town, districts which have a sum total of six and a bit miles between them. It is very clear which particular subset of the nation these peers represent.

Given this shared background, they sometimes seem unable to understand what a life lived without absolute control over every aspect of it might be like. At best, they appear to believe that such lives should be subject to their ideas of improvements, to bring them closer to the platonic ideal of Stoke Newington, but if such a course proves impossible, other alternatives are available. It is, by the logic of the North London Valkyries, better to be dead than not in absolute control.

Up against them is a very different trio of women: Baronesses Finlay, O’Loan and Grey-Thompson. They represent different regions; Finlay is from Wales, O’Loan is a Northern Irish peer, while Grey-Thompson lives in Stockton-on-Tees. These opposing peers had serious jobs, away from the blob-adjacent, stakeholder state. Finlay was a professor of palliative medicine, O’Loan inspected police in Northern Ireland and Grey-Thompson was a Paralympic champion, for whom the debate over the bill’s threat to the vulnerable is not merely abstract.

In contrast to the North Circular trio, who take the Labour whip, the trio opposing them are crossbenchers, peers who vote and speak more freely. They bring up viewpoints, factual issues and procedural questions that are of visible irritation to the peers determined to hector and lecture the bill into law. Their questions and contributions have sometimes prompted their opponents to attempt to hasten proceedings and block them from speaking. Baroness Hayter has tried, in Orwellian fashion, to rewrite the definition of suicide altogether, arguing that it should not apply to those who might end their lives by assisted suicide, simply because they are nearing the end of their lives. She once memorably referred to the debate as ‘not a life or death issue’.

Unlike Jay, Hayter and Blackstone, who sometimes express an audible frustration at their Lordships’ refusal simply to roll over to their demands, the opposing three speak in a calm and considered way, always with the safety of the vulnerable at the centre of their questions. They frequently pose difficult questions the bill’s supporters can’t – or won’t – answer, about practicality, funding and safety, not just the principle of choice. This tactic, it seems, only makes the bill’s supporters angrier. Baroness Jay recently snapped and dismissed her opponents’ scrutiny and tabled amendments as ‘time-wasting’.

It’s not just two visions of the nature of life and death which are put forward by these opposing trios of women, but two visions of the Upper House and of the nation. The experienced and compassionate voices of the United Kingdom vs a cabal of apparatchiks from a few neighbouring postcodes in an out-of-touch capital. Truly, it couldn’t be more representative if it tried.