Post-truth

Post-truth

I've finished wishing all my friends a happy Christmas by post and email and also wishing them the best for the new year. In the latter lies the rub. Most of the messages I have received in return indicate trepidation for the year ahead and I feel a compulsion to play Nostradamus or Old Moore and attempt an Almanack.

What intrigues me most is where a current post-truth society might lead. Leaving aside 1984 and Brave New World (we don't yet have a Ministry of Post-truth) and Alice's Wonderland, what we are left with is a kind of modern Middle Ages, although truth was sought after even then. Ways of seeking it were sometimes bizarre and extreme, via soothsayers and torture, but it was sought after and generally suppressed only when it conflicted with religion. Religion, as then, is once again a powerful force and rising as a force for destruction. The west hasn't experienced religious wars since the Middle Ages but militant Islam has that at it's core and seems bent on engaging in Europe. Fundamentalism and intolerance are rife. We aren't yet burning witches at the stake but treason is back in fashion as an accusation, in the UK at least. The west's crusades in the Middle East have played no small part in creating this situation. Are we really in for another period of the Dark Ages? Because, if so, war is more than just a possibility and conceivably in a manner and on a scale never seen before.

Dark as all this seems I remain an optimist at heart. If we can't yet have a sane 21st century maybe we can have a repeat of the 18^th. Going back three centuries would certainly be preferable to going back seven or more, could even be regarded as progress now. Trump may have appointed previously discredited alchemists as his scientific advisers but reason and enlightenment may yet prevail. That, at any rate, is my fervent wish for my friends in 2017. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said a long time ago that stupidity is more dangerous than evil because evil raises doubts in people's minds and you can reason with that but not with stupidity (or blind prejudice, my addition). Someone also said that the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits; stupidity does not. Let us hope that the spirit of the 18^th century prevails in 2017. I think, and fervently hope, that will be the case. The alternative does not bear contemplation.

The Media And Christmas

The Media: An Internet Opportunity?

Special-interest commercial intrusion on political affairs, and thereby the basis of democracy, is everywhere very apparent. To counter this, I've seen proposals for government control of expenditure on political party promotion and the like, especially as elections near, but nothing that strikes me as remotely practical. That in itself doesn't concern me. What does is how an individual can be enabled to form a reasoned opinion on the basis of good information when virtually all media are subjected to commercial pressure.

When I was young The Times was pointed out to me as a source of uncommented reporting, neutral information in that sense. It would print what was said/written elsewhere verbatim, separating that explicitly from any comment. Nowadays all the press has to be regarded simply as an arm of the commercial and personal (press barons') PR industry. True, exactly what has been said in the UK parliament can be discovered via Hansard but I know of no other verbatim sources, giving both what has been said/written and the context.

All this leads me to wonder whether there exists an opportunity for some community-spirited internet entrepreneur. In another life I would have loved to take this up but the means and capabilities are now well beyond me. However the internet has shown the power of public-spirited people collectively in the form of free and publicly available excellent software which manages to sustain itself economically. Could a site offering verbatim news do the same? If such a site were available it would render an incalculably important service to democracy, all the more so in a post-truth world.

Praise For The Irrational

Somewhat in spite of the forgoing I believe that the irrational can play an important role in people's lives. Like many others no doubt I have an irrational/ unconditional love for my children. I have just learned that, all being well, I should become a grandfather next year and my love for that child as yet unknown will be similarly unconditional and irrational. And so, I believe, it should be. This need for the irrational has been with me all my life. Having spent virtually all of my working life in a field that requires, at the technical level, extreme logical rigour, I felt this need even before having children. The focus of it has been, and still is, the football club I support, Chelsea. The team is doing well at the moment but I have always known with absolute certainty, however the team was doing, that if it lost a match the only possible explanation was that the referee had been paid off or that the Fates had somehow conspired to produce this otherwise inexplicable eventuality.

Christmas

Christmas is coming, which always evokes for me memories of the 1960's cynical song by Tom Lehrer. But it's not really like that. Before I had kids Christmas was always something of an epicurean event for me: food, wine, friends and family. From the time I had kids, Christmas was all about the kids, their excitement, their reactions and enjoyment until they outgrew it. Since then it has been rather low-key, an excuse to spend a bit more than usual on food and wine and, hopefully, a day or two socialising with good friends. So it will be this year. There is little difference between being in France or England other than the that the French don't do Christmas cards, which means acquiring them from England one way or another for those of my friends and family who don't have the internet or to whom I want to send a card anyway. It should be an enjoyable time but, I find, for maximum enjoyment kids are necessary. Christmas has never had religious connotations for me; it's my pagan mid-winter festival.

Despite that I'll be singing carols as usual, at the local retirement home and outside the Bar du Pont, for all those brave enough to listen, with all the musical expertise I gathered on the terraces of Chelsea football club abusing the referee and opposing teams. Happily there are other members of the “choir” who have a greater ability with music (what's the word for that: does musicacy exist? if not, it should). As I've noted in previous years, carol singing is not a tradition in this part of France but one introduced recently by English and ex-Alsatian residents here. And the villagers have taken to it, especially as the Bar du Pont makes and serves mulled wine for the event. And kids galore come to join in.

Question Time

Question Time

Last week I decided to watch the TV programme Question Time. I don't often watch debates on TV because I get unduly annoyed and frustrated when a chairperson or interviewer has the opportunity to pin someone down on a point and totally fails to do so. However I wanted to see the topics coming up now and the ensuing discussions as I haven't watched this weekly political discussion programme for months. And I was rather perturbed by what I saw.

Brexit of course came up as one of the topics and also as a sub-plot to others. The panel had representatives from the Treasury side of both the Labour and Conservative parties, the leader of the Lib Dem party, Tim Farron, a very articulate professor of economics and a benign and somewhat buffoon head of a retail chain. The audience, from its questions and reactions, appeared suitably mixed, hopefully more or less representative, with just a few obvious extreme right-wingers. What perturbed me was what was not said as much as what was said, the cowed tone of the discussions when I have been used to passionate if not always well-reasoned debate on this programme.

When Brexit-related issues came up, the Labour and Conservative politicians almost tripped over themselves to be polite to one another and avoid controversy. The industry representative, who had voted Leave, talked benignly about the importance of freeing people to make decisions in the certainty(?) that creativity would follow, with nothing more specific than that; his business was entirely in the UK, a point made by the economics professor. The only two of the panel who came out of the debate with any credit, in my view, were the professor of economics and Tim Fallon. The former, quoting figures (some the governments own) and drawing definite conclusions, jovially made a strong case that a hard Brexit would be tantamount to national economic suicide, a case that the Conservative representative hardly even bothered to dispute. Although working and living in England, she had a north American accent which may have had something to do with the dispassionate tone of her pronouncements. Tim Farron very clearly said that all had yet to be decided, including whether or not Brexit actually happened. Those were the only two, apart from the audience right-wingers, who made any definite statements.

The discussion was almost a non-event then, except that the extreme right-wingers in the audience made it clear that there as no possibility of compromise on their part, with undertones of a threat of violence if any compromise was attempted. It was this, together with the cowed atmosphere among those who tried reasoned argument, that perturbed me. Whatever happens, those who rely on reason must not be cowed. Or are we to have the battle of Cable Street and its consequences all over again? If the extreme right threatens violence, explicitly or implicitly, if opposed, will the centre and left have the courage to resist and, if necessary, take action against it?

France's Economic Problems

In a nutshell the roots of France's economic problems are far too generous contractual arrangements made with its workforce, arrangements that it can no longer afford. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that over 50% of the workforce is employed directly or indirectly by the government. A result is lack of investment in anything that would imply cutting jobs, however temporarily, and thus a lack of new jobs. Within the roots are very generous pension arrangements; these have been curtailed by recent administrations but only by forcing some employees to work for longer, which simply exacerbates the new job shortage. So what can France do?

It could well be that another 1968 is on the cards. The primaries for the next Presidential election are already underway with Fillon the winner of the centre-right candidacy. The political mood of the country seems to be a swing to the right, which could bring to power an administration that would attempt to make the necessary economic reforms. However, that would inevitably provoke a veritable Olympics of the nation's favourite sport: strikes; and strikes to an extent that could cripple the country. With no General de Gaulle in sight to sort it out, the result may well be another sport at which France excels: political fudging.

Gloomy Monday And Newspapers' Futures

Gloomy Monday

It's said you have to be retired to like Mondays. Well I'm retired but this is certainly not a Monday that I like. It's been raining all day, so no boules and I don't need shopping so I haven't been out. I'm left with my PC, TV, books and my own thoughts and my thoughts have been as gloomy as the weather. Getting my daily “fix” from the AWAD (A Word a Day) site I found the quote for the day was: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire). The absurdity that came immediately to my mind was Brexit. The referendum result was clearly a function of poor control of immigration, for which the EU got the blame. Yet the UK has not been using the controls it has available to it under EU legislation. Who now has to sort out this problem? Theresa May. Who was, since 2010, the Home Office minister responsible for control of immigration? Theresa May. Presumably she wants more controls to be unused.

The other absurdity is the idea of an EU army, which the EU has stated as urgently needed since the election of Trump. Russia is clearly in expansionist mode so something might be needed. I've read comment to the effect that Russia's annexations, actual and potential, relate only to territories with large Russian populations but.….…..…..anyone remember Austria and Anschluss, anyone remember Sudetenland? The Baltic states are deemed to be at risk. Yet which EU countries would be prepared to sacrifice their own defence capability for a joint EU one and which could afford both? And what would the role of an EU army be if one EU state decided to have a go at another? Nationalism is on the rise and, in the words of Francois Mitterand “nationalism means war”.

A gloomy Monday indeed.

The Future Of Newspapers

Yet more gloom, I'm afraid. I've noticed that the Guardian newspaper is asking for donations, stating that it's voice is now needed more than ever. I agree with that and am toying with the idea of donating but wonder what effect a donation of the size I could make would have, even if made by many. Commercial enterprises have essentially to find commercial means of surviving. The problem is advertising revenue which is increasingly being diverted from newspapers to TV, the internet and sponsorships. The Independent has already ceased to publish as a physical newspaper, joining the Huffington Post as a purely electronic but sane form of news. The Telegraph is getting its knickers in a twist trying to reconcile its pro-Brexit stance with its pro-business bias and The Times is Murdoch-owned (as is The Sun) so can't be relied on for anything. How can the gutter press devoted to the post-truth society be couterbalanced?

Some enterprises with a social conscience have indicated that they are withholding advertising from newspapers running racist and fascist/nationalist campaigns. That helps but hardly looks like enough. Popular campaigns aren't enough either. The boycott of The Sun in Liverpool following its Hillshborough lies probably dented its revenues but not enough to make it change its ethos. One measure the government could take, since it is strapped for money, is to impose VAT on newspapers. It would be a reasonable measure as few can claim they offer a service to the public rather than their owners and that would hit the gutter press hardest. It wouldn't help the Guardian though. If “those who can make you believe absurdities” are to be defeated, it seems another way will have to be found.

Brexit

Brexit or Alice In Wonderland (Again)

I'm Alice, by the way. wondering at the madness of it all.

I recently read an article in which Brexit was likened to an onion: you peel away a layer and find another underneath, which you peel away to find…....etc ad nauseam. So, to summarise the most recent developments that seem pertinent to me, they are:

1 The highest legal authority in Scotland is to back the High Court ruling in the UK Supreme Court appeal.

2 A consitutional lawyer in the UK has reported the Leave campaign to the CPS.

3 The EU is to debate an amendment that would allow UK individuals to keep EU citizenship if they wished.

4 Jeremy Corbyn has declared that the Labour Party will not oppose the Brexit result.

Let's take each of these in turn.

The Scottish action might have been anticipated. What it does is to strengthen the case aganst the appeal which appears to be quite strong anyway. Unless the government can get at the Supreme Court in some way, my guess is that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court ruling but that that may have little consequence anyway. The majority of MPs seems to cling supinely to respect(?) for the referendum result and debate will result at most in a «soft Brexit» (see below).

Reporting of the Leave campaign to the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service) was a surprise to me, even if I have been campaigning to have the gutter press reported to the PCC. It turns out that deliberately and knowingly misleading people to obtain electoral advantage is a criminal offence, of which the Leave campaign is most evidently guilty. But will the CPS take up the case? My guess is that, unless there are some serious renegades in the CPS, government pressure will ensure that the CPS finds some reason not to take the matter further. They'll cite insufficient evidence or some such.

The EU amendment that could allow UK citizens to retain EU-granted rights is an interesting one, one that could even go as far as the European Court of Justice. My guess is that the EU will probably reject this initially, unless mischievous elements in the EU can see that this would create Mayhem (sic) in the UK and would love to see that, but an appeal to the European Court of Justice, if that happened, might just succeed.

Lastly, Jeremy Corbyn's statement that the Labour Party will not oppose the Brexit result. There's a saying: when in a hole, stop digging, to which Corbyn seems impervious. By implication what he seeks to achieve (secure UK jobs, etc) is a so-called «soft Brexit». This is a quite possible outcome but the one that will please fewest, even if it avoids apparent economic suicide. It won't please Remainers because they will be outside the EU; and it won't please Leavers because it will limit control on EU immigration and legislation. So it is not going to attract many votes. In a stroke, Corbyn with pristine socialist (Marxist?) principles intact, dumps the Labour Party on the political scrapheap. The Lib-Dems being more or less invisible, the Tory Party will be able to do what it wants, restricted only by the judiciary that it can't get at.

There are some great corollaries. If May loses the Supreme Court appeal she can appeal to the European Court of Justice. Would she do that???????? If, it's a very big IF, the CPS does take up the «election fraud» case, decides to prosecute and finds the Leave Campaign guilty, who does what and when? It really is pure Alice In Wonderland.

What does Alice think? She thinks that the only rational outcomes are a hard Brexit, with the UK in a probable economic recession for at least a decade, or rejection of the referendum result. But, as Alice knows, rationality doesn't come into it; we're in Wonderland The most likely result? A soft-ish Brexit, a country forever divided, nobody pleased, numerous scarce resources necessarily applied to matters that shouldn't have needed to be addressed. She asks: why hasn't anyone the guts to admit that this was all an awful mistake?

Brexit And All Saints' day

 

Brexit

The High Court verdict on Brexit could conceivably reverse the referendum result but problems remain (sic). The outrage from the gutter press and Tory Reich can simply be dismissed as the natural result of cheats seeing their spoils possibly being snatched from them. I did wonder, however, why nobody appears to have complained to the PCC at the Daily Mail's inference that judges (in general by implication) drive while using their phones. Isn't that a libel in the absence of evidence and where's the evidence? (of judges in general). I still don't understand why the gutter press in the UK hasn't been hauled before the PCC on numerous Brexit points. The outrage should also make clear to anyone with half a brain that the Tory Reich et al have no faith in parliamentary democracy. So much for their claimed belief in home rule and transparency.

However, that is a minor issue. Two important points arise. The first is whether the government can get at the Supreme Court in some way, since that is where the matter is likely to end up. I've no idea about that but it will be important. The other, assuming the Supreme Court backs the current ruling, is whether enough MPs can accept that the referendum result was only advisory and not a mandate, as has often been implied. True the referendum result can be regarded as a democratic vote but democracy in the UK has never been ruled by plebiscites and cannot be. Parliament has always acted as a filter and should do so on this matter (in my view). If it comes to this, much will depend on the pressure Remainers can put on their MPs, since the gutter press and Tory Reich are sure to do so.

All Saints' Day

I never remember All Saints' Day being noticed in the UK and I don't think that was because I was never religious. However it is a national holiday here and the shops are full of pots of chrysanthemums to be placed on graves. I can't see any harm in people putting flowers on the graves of loved ones but it appears to be more general here, something more like a form of worship of the dead, as in Mexico's Day of the Dead. I was conscious while in the UK that there was an old wives' tale that you shouldn't bring chrysanthemums into the house or someone would die but that was about the sum of it. I wonder about the connection between chrysanthemums and the dead; there must be some historical/mythic/folkloric connection but I don't know it. I guess it's all harmless. (Unlike Brexit.)

Post-Truth Society

Post-Truth Society?

I came across a new expression the other day, new to me that is, and it immediately sprang connections in my mind with a few other themes on which I'm inclined to ruminate. The expression was «the post-truth era», which is apparently the era we are in. What I think it means is an era in which truth, or any semblance of it (we're not talking about absolutes here) is of little consequence. So politicians, for instance, can tell blatant lies in the almost certain knowledge that they will get away with them with impunity. Others of consequence, such as powerful companies, have not infrequently done the same in the past, but not with certain knowledge of impunity and probably having consulted their copious legal and PR teams beforehand. So the post-truth era is new in the UK, and possibly in any modern democracy and I find its implications both intriguing and nefarious.

What does total disregard for the truth, for that is what it is, imply? To me it implies a total contempt for anyone with any intelligence and a belief that the lies being told will be believed by a significant perecentage of those hearing/reading them. For that to be effective we need a very significant number of people who are very gullible or ill-educated or who believe it is in their interest to claim to believe the lies. In the post-truth era, lies are obviously believed to be effective and so the necessary conditions must hold true. And belief in the efficacy of lies implies to me a total contempt for society.

One of the things I love about the small rural village in which I live is the pervading sense of community, of the importance of this small society. It was Margaret Thatcher who said that there was no such thing as society (so, anarchy or what?) and she also who in essence legitimised the importance of wealth in the British mindset. I have no problem with the legitimacy of creating wealth, or even accumulating it, but in the absence of any concept of society wonder what restrictions there might be on the way it should be made (we Brits abolished slavery around 200 years ago). The banker I mentioned in my last posting volunteered that people had asked him why no one had forseen the 2008 crash. His answer was that the banks were making so much money that they didn't want it to stop and didn't care to look ahead. So much for caring about society. The upshot, I think, is a tendency towards a culture that reveres wealth and asks few questions about how it is made.

What has happened in the interim, in the UK and USA certainly and no doubt elsewhere, is that the

wealth gap between the richest and poorest sectors of society has grown enormously. At the same time, and in part to help wealth creation, public sector budgets and hence public sector services, have increasingly been cut. The result has been to further increase the wealth gap and create a large under-class of poor and often ill-educated people who feel disenfranchised. That in turns means a large group of people open to exploitation in the post-truth era and hence the rise of populism and unchallenged blatant lies. In past times these conditions have given rise to political extremes, revolution and fascism/communism. Let's hope it doesn't happen this time around.

Even worse, this situation seems to be reinforcing itself and there appears to be no effective policical will to check or reverse it. That does not paint a pretty pciture for the future.

Phonetic English

Let's accept that language changes continuously and very often not in ways that purists and conservatives like. So it is with spelling and we all make spelling mistakes from time to time but......... My stance on this is that people should know the rules at any one time and so know if they are breaking them and have an intended reason for doing so. I don't expect the popular media to know the rules, let alone follow them or have knowing reasons for not doing so, but I do expect the more responsible media to do so. So it was with some dismay that I read in an ITN news bulletin about police stopping a car because of a suspect «tire» and a report in The Independent of people who «sort» refuge. These points can be dismissed as the moans of a grumpy old man but beware the instructions on anything dangerous such as use of medication or electrical goods. I haven't yet seen «discrete» and «discreet» confused on anything dangerous but have little doubt that that time will come. And I often wonder what some people think inflammable means. Interestingly, if an actionable incident were to occur as a result of a spelling mistake, a learned judge would be called upon to make a ruling and I wonder what arguments he/she would encounter.

Weather, Laptops And Brexit

This And That

I feel that another post is due but there is not a lot that has happened since my last post. The weather changed momentarily and we had two days of heavy rain, which has saved me a lot of time watering. The warm autumn sun has returned now. I've redone the hanging baskets out front with cyclamen which, with luck, should provide some colour through to the spring. There is colour also from some yellow daisy-flowered plants (chrysanthemum family but not chrysanthemums as you think of them) I bought in the summer which have sulked until now but finally decided to do their thing. There are also michaelmas daisies, two plumbago, a solanum and a fuchsia in bloom. So the front doesn't look too bad.

My favourite laptop developed hardware faults so I'm having to look for a new one and have finally decided I'll just have to get accustomed to using an AZERTY keyboard. The difficulties in acquiring a new laptop with a QWERTY keyboard are just too restrictive and complicated. So be it, although I really don't understand why suppliers who offer all kinds of options on other elements of a PC seem to get rigid when it comes to keyboards. Global markets??????

I went to BELL (Beaumont English Language Library) to hear Stanislas Yassukavich talk about a book, two lives, he has written on his and his father's life in banking, which he didn't actually talk about, saying that was all in the book (so buy the book!). He expounded on his trials and tribulations in finding and dealing with a publisher, which simply confirmed my opinions on the point. Publishers today are simply glorified printing and distribution organisations and understand little or nothing of the markets they supposedly serve. His experience was even worse; his publishing house didn't even have useful proof-reading or indexing expertise. Admittedly my own experience was helped by not having to seek a publisher, since my three books were all commissioned, but in all cases I was asked by the publisher how it could sell the book and, indeed, had to agree to a short lecture tour for one of them.

Stanislas did however provide some useful answers to questions. Friend Steve asked him about the impact of Brexit on the London financial services market and he thought there would be little impact since the supposed services «passport» doesn't really exist. Individual countries within the EU don't have to recognise the qualifications of service providers in other countries and generally don't, to protect their own practitioners and markets. The euro zone could, presumably, and presumably would, exclude euro-linked services but the issue was otherwise irrelevant. I asked him for his opinion on the survival of the euro and he was adamant in saying that it couldn't survive. According to him, total financial integration within the EU would be required, implying a financial authority above national banks such as the Bankof France, Italy, Germany etc, and few if any EU countries would accept that. The eventual break-up of the euro zone, he added, could be very messy.

Incidentally, I read a couple of articles in the responsible press today about Brexit. One stated that Parliament now understands that constitutionally the result of the EU could only be advisory; though why it didn't understand this from the outset defeats me. The second was that MPs of all parties accept the referendum result as a mandate but want to insist on debating the proposed terms of Brexit. I can understand the latter: Parliament should debate the terms. But I can't understand the former; if the referendum result was only advisory, how can it be a mandate? To substantiate this, The Independent newspaper commissioned a survey which now shows, of people regretting and wishing to change their vote, a sufficient swing to provide a majority favouring retention of EU membership. What can only be termed near-hysteria in such popular newspapers as the Mail and Express tends to confirm the suspicion that they know they are backed by only a minority. So what is the « mandate » now?

Politics

Politics Are Screwed

I've had a lot of conversations with French friends recently about Brexit and politics more generally. I've explained that, in my view, politics in the UK has never been in a worse state in my lifetime. It's not just the lack of politicians of discernible stature, which I've commented on before, but the state of the major political parties at a time when we needed them all to be strong. The Labour party has just re-elected a leader who seems firmly intent on a Marxist agenda that the electorate at large will never accept and who lacks any credibility in Parliamentary debates. For that very reason he has split the party in two. The conservative party is also split in two, between those who want a °hard° Brexit, with no trade agreement with the EU, and those who want some kind of compromise. In effect; it's a split between the extreme right and the middle-right of the party The Liberal democrats, who normally occupy the middle ground, are barely visible and seem not to want it. It's a very bleak picture for anybody but the rich.

My French friends recount a similar tale. The current President, Hollande, is universally reviled. However, none of moderate persuasion wants either Sarkozy or Le Penn; and nobody can see any viable alternatives. Immigration is a major issue here as elsewhere and, if it came to a straight fight, Sarkozy would probably be voted in to keep Marie Le Penn out. Nobody wants that but nobody can see an alternative. Italy, Germany, Hungary and other European countries are in a similar state.

In the USA Trump, who is seen anywhere but in the USA as a dangerous clown, is not that far off being elected. None of the Americans I know can see Trump winning but then nobody in the UK seriously thought the UK would leave the EU. And none of the Americans I know really want Hilary Clinton, they just see no alternative.

All this is at a time when the conflict in Syria could trigger a global conflagration and when Putin in Russia, who has said the former USSR should never ave been broken up, is acting like a testosterone fuelled adolescent and seems to want to recreate it. Pitt the Younger, on his deathbed, lamented the state he left his country in. Anybody now might lament the same of the world.

Languages And Autumn

Learning A Language

Filters of all kind are used on the internet nowadays to discover who you are and what you may want and I've definitely been identified as an English ex-pat. One consequence is that I'm constantly being made offers to place my private pension abroad (already done) and to learn languages. As it happens I already speak reasonable French but some of the offers make me laugh. This man learned a language in a week, I'm told, and this other man speaks 11 languages; learn his secrets! It's of interest to me because friend Steve and I are about to restart our English conversation classes here in Mollans.

Fortunately I know enough (more than enough) not to pursue any of these offers. Having studied French to university level, taught in French for a year at a French secondary school and now lived full-time in France for 10 years, I find I am still learning the language. And I don't think I'm a particularly unintelligent student. So how do these apparent geniuses manage it?

The answer, of course, is that they don't; they can't possibly do so. What is possible after a week? Being able to say hello, goodbye, the weather is fine, my name is…..not much more. Which poses the question: what does being able to speak a language really mean?

If we are talking about anywhere near perfection then the majority of native speakers of the language would fail so we can rule that one out. Given the last few decades of teaching, we can also rule out understanding and use of grammar. Spelling? The most obvious howlers abound on the internet and even in supposedly reputable journals. So what are we left with?

I think it is the ability to communicate, with a reasonable degree of subtlety, what we think, want, or mean to say for most, but by no means all, practical purposes. That much, given considerable immertion in the language, should be achievable within a year, maybe a bit less. But……...the problem with communication is that it is necessarily two-way; you may be able to communicate to someone else but can you understand what comes back? Here we're into accents, dialects, idioms and Heaven knows what else. Learning that in a week? Learning that for eleven languages? I simply don't believe it is possible. I think it probably takes best part of a lifetime for even one language.

Autumn

Autumn is definitely here now. The very hot and dry summer weather continued until a week ago but a couple of storms have put paid to it and at the moment we have much more comfortable temperatures and skies varyng between overcast and sunny. The change shows in the shops and markets and in activities around the village. Much of the fruit I love has now disappeared. The last strawberries went about a month ago and apricots have followed them. There are still peaches, nectarines and melons to be found though and figs have made an appearance; I'm making the most of them until they disappear too, probably around the end of the month. Around the village grape harvesters and trailers are everywhere as the grapes are stripped from the vines for what should be a bumper year, given the amount of sunshine we have had. The next stage will be several varieties of mushrooms in the shops and invitations to wineries to celebrate the new vintages. Autumn here can be great as the village gets back to normal after the hordes of summer visitors, welcome as they are, return from whence they came. So there is still much to enjoy.

Education, Don't Knows And Burkinis

Conundrums And The Truth

Everybody at some time or another wants to know the truth, the trouble being that nobody really knows it. Everybody also forms judgements, probably several times every day, and most want these judgements to be reasonably well informed. And, of course, these two are closely connected. So how can we best go about them?

When my mind wanders into conundrums like these and the weather is as warm, as it is now, I commonly take to my balcony late in the evening with a glass of calvados to hand, contemplate the darkening scenery across the river and think. The balcony is actually a no-go area at the moment due to a colony of hornets feeding on the grapes above but evening contemplation and calvados remain.

We live in an age when information has never been more immediate or in such plentiful supply and yet, perhaps, never so useless. The printed press, the internet, TV and radio deluge us with information 24 hours per day but always, it seems, either with a strong political bias or bland acceptance of what participants are saying in their own interest. At root is the apparently wilful failure to distinguish between what is actually said and done and comment on it. We need our dubito as never before.

The only answer I can see to this problem is to teach people to think, really think deeply, for themselves. Unfortunately, educational systems quite generally seem hell-bent on the opposite. I have just viewed a French cartoon of a teacher with a diary almost filled with holidays and days of strike. Teachers in France, as those in the UK that I know, are all pissed off. It takes determined mismanagement to piss off people dedicated to doing what they are supposed to be doing. An advert for teachers in the UK that has been running in the on TV says “work with the most creative and innovative people around: children”. True. What it doesn't say is “turn them into box ticking robots” or “and learn to become a first-class administrative clerk”. But that would be far nearer the truth. Education has become a political football that never gets near its true goal.

“Don't Knows” Win At Last

Before any election anywhere in the democratic world there are always polls suggesting how people will vote, with always a percentage of “don't knows”. The “don't knows” never win an election but seem to have won the UK EU referendum. It's probably a worldwide first. The UK population voted, apparently, for Brexit means Brexit, but nobody knows what that means. The government that has inherited this mandate has been asked if that means a trade deal with the EU and it has said that it doesn't know. It has been asked what curbs this might mean on immigration and it has said that it doesn't know. It has been asked what this means for the rights of EU citizens in the UK or in the EU and it has said that it doesn't know. Asked if it knows today's date it might just know but that is about as far as it goes. So the “don't knows” who won are now being governed by the government which doesn't know. There's a kind of logic to that but, to be frank, even Alice in Wonderland made more sense to me than that.

Burkinis Again

The French government has got its knickers in a twist over Burkinis. The ban imposed in some municipalities has been overruled by a high court. It turns out that this garb was designed by an Australian to actually liberate muslim women rather than confine them, in line witn France's well-known liberty, equality and fraternity principles. However, amusing comparisons with wet suits, diving gear and other comparable clothing aside, it does apparently conflict with France's principle of not allowing open public display of religious affiliation. But…….nuns and priests in traditional clothing, on view just about everywhere in France?

As ever this looks to be a case of France having strict principles and rules that get overlooked when they prove inconvenient. This, in reality, is the real principle in France: something is always true except when it isn't. I have a limited acquaintance with political animals but those I have known have a clear understanding of “no go” areas. They know that anything to do with human relationships is something that government is bad at and a potential minefield: don't go there, prevaricate. Clothing is something similar. I remember the dictatorship that briefly took over Greece in the 1960s banned mini-skirts only to be confronted with the fact that they were part of the uniform of the national guard. But that was a case of generals rather than politicians making the ruling. Politicians should know better than to get involved in such matters. It seems that French politicians have fallen for this sucker punch and they really should know better.

Brexit And Burkinis

Brexit

The Huffingon Post, a rare example of a reasonable and responsible press publication in the UK, even if online only, recently published an article on the best response to Brexit for the UK. As a criterion it took the words of Jeremy Bentham, an 18^th century philosopher and social reformer who said that the best distinction between what was morally right and wrong was the test of what brought the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. It applied this test to Brexit and measured known voter preferences and found, essentially, that a “hard” Brexit (absolute control of borders and no trade agreement with EU) would please only a minority of the population, a “soft” Brexit (minor control of borders and an EU trade agreement) would please virtually no one and that the status quo, no Brexit, would please all but a small majority and would make of PM Theresa May the most popular PM in decades. So what is the UK going to do? Probably the first of these, according to PM Theresa May herself. So, economic suicide, political suicide (and don't ask about the morality); a death wish or what?

As a footnote, Jeremy Bentham advocated (in the 18^th century) individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce and decriminalisation of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights.

Burkinis Etc

There has been a recent brouhaha in the press in France over the fact that various notable holiday resorts alomg the Mediterranean riviera and Corsica have banned on beaches the so-called burkini, a garb that covers most of the body.  Personally I don't care what, if anything, people wear when on beaches but, being male, am all in favour of attractive exposure of female form. But that is incidental and purely a personal preference. The French justification for the ban has been overt public display of religious affiliation, which is against French law, and thereby justified. But, the argument rages, is it anti-Islamic? It turns out that the Burkini is also banned, in public swimming pools, in no less an anti-Islamic(?) state as Morocco, for hygienic reasons, and bikinis are specifically allowed. I think that if you want to argue on what is anti- this or that religion you can argue forever and will probably never arrive at any point on which most people agree. If that is the death of political correctness, I'm all in favour.

On a humourous note I caught some footage on the Internet of purported coverage of the Olympics on strict Islamic TV channels. I've no idea whether the images were in fact taken from some nations official TV channels or not but the results were hilarious. Since sight of most of the female form is banned, womens' races consisted of black blobs with hands and feet flaying rushing in a line; and how anyone made sense of the gymnastics I'm at a loss to know. How can one black blob be seen as more precise, elegant or artistic than another identical black blob? It was hilarious viewing if true but I have a strong suspicion that any channel operating under such constraints would simply not broadcast these events at all. That in turn raises an interesting point: if these events are not broadcast in some countries, does this mean that for citizens of those countries such events don't exist? What happens if one of the country's participants wins a medal….? Alice in Wonderland territory.

As a further footnote, an Islamic extremist in the UK has now been convicted of inciting terrorism, with the incriminating evidence accumulating over many years. The Islamic hierarchy in the UK has reacted to this by saying they have been arguing for this conviction for a decade. So why did it take so long for the UK authorities to act? Political correctness again.

Tests And Racism

Test Results

I was reminded of something I did when teaching at Summerhill by a post by friend Roy Terry on Facebook. Roy's post was a warning against testing children too early. He was quite right, I thought, but with reservations. The problem I see is not so much in the tests themselves, provided there aren't too many of them, but in the treatment of the results.

At Summerhill, wanting to know how much of what I had been teaching the kids had actually been understood, I told them I would give them a test. Consternation all round! We don't have tests at Summerhill, I was told. So I explained why I wanted to give them a test and said they needn't take it if they didn't want to. In the event, all the classs did take it and I corrected their papers and returned them. More consternation! I hadn't given them any scores and they wanted to know who had come first, last, etc. I said I didn't know and wasn't interested; I'd found out what I wanted to know, which was what they had understood and what they hadn't. They hadn't wanted to take the test because they had been afraid of being ranked low but, having taken the test, wanted to know how they were ranked. The test taught me that kids had learned to expect test results to rank them and, possibly, show they had succeeded or failed. But I see no reason why that should be so. In the general education system it is so only because the authorities want league tables and tick boxes which, in my view, have very little to do with education (or anything at all come to that, except tick boxes and meaningless numbers).

Racism In The UK

Post Brexit there has been a measurable and worrying increase in the UK of race-related hate crimes. That disturbs me and tends to confirm my suspicion that the referendum result was basically decided by at best xenophobia and at worst outright racism. Many Leave voters have said that it was not immigration but taking back control that was the key issue for them; but taking back control of what? Theresa May seems clear that the message was to take back control of the borders; and what does that mean? It means keeping out foreigners.

Most of the popular press in the UK which campaigned for a Leave vote is now engaged in what I can only describe as incitement to race hatred. Positive stories on immigrants are simply not reported and any negative stories, however singular, are given headlines with implications that such stories are widespread. This has an exact analogy with Germany in the 1930s and the rise of Hitler and I think any decent lawyer could make a good case for a complaint to IPSO, the Press Complaints body, for inciting race hatred. There are laws in the UK against that so why has no complaint (to my knowledge) been made? There's no prima facie case, the popular press is too clever for that, but I can't see how the cumulative body of evidence could lead to any other conclusion. Maybe it's a question of who has the will and the courage.

As an ironic footnote, recent figures show that the UK has more emigrants in Europe than any other European country. In other words, the UK has more immigrants in other European countries than other European countries have elsewhere. So who exactly is against immigration?

Muslims, The Press And Summer

Muslims And The Press

I have been struck by a couple of recent newspaper articles, or perhaps rather the absence of them. In London recently there was a demonstration by thousands of muslims against the violence of Daesh. However, you could easily have missed that fact if you weren't there. It wasn't reported in most of the UK press; anyone who reads the Mail, Express, Star, or Sun remember reading about it? Here in France a large number of muslims have attended a Catholic service at the church in Normany where the Catholic priest was murdered, to show sympathy and solidarity with the congregation. Any chance of that being reported in the Mail, Express, Star or Sun, as the murder of the priest of course was?

In my youth I remember being shocked when no lesser a paper than The Times (a reputable newspaper at the time, incidentally) was hauled before the Press Council, the UK body then responsible for press ethics, and found guilty of distorting the truth by not reporting a signifcant event: the Sharpeville massacre somehow escaped its attention. In fact, I believe that that was only the second time that The Times had been found guilty by the Press Council, the earlier time being for the same offence and, I think, something to do with Hitler; it might have been Crystal Night that was somehow overlooked. I note this only to make the point that omission, failure to report an event, can be as much a distortion as misrepresenting whatever has happened. However, I believe the Press Council had jurisdiction over newspapers only, not comics and I'm not sure about the current body or whether it is able to distinguish between the two.

Summer Rolls On

We've had a few days of storms and some rain but the excessive heat is still with us; 38 degrees in the shade this afternoon. So I've been watering frantically to keep plants alive. The formal village festivities are already over for this year and its grandchildren time for the older residents. I seem to have acquired a pet masonry wasp, the type with a thin thorax and bulges at both ends. It has been buzzing around my head as I sit at my PC for a couple of weeks now and goes into the book shelf beside me, presumably building the little masonry pots in which it stores an egg and a paralysed spider. It must go out at night because every morning when I open the door onto the balcony it comes buzzing in to continue its work. The end result is rather gruesome. When the egg hatches the grub eats the spider, turns into a wasp, breaks the pot and flies off. But that's nature. When I go to my books I'll try not to disturb the pots until they are empty.

Power Depresses Me

Power Depresses Me

There is a saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've always taken that as true (as a tendency) but never thought much more about it. However I feel that the full truth of that saying is now coming home to roost and that feeling depresses me. I feel that the world is becoming polarised, with only the extreme right and extreme left having any audible voices, and a yawning strange silence in between.

In the UK there can be little doubt that the Brexit vote has delighted right-wing extremists and increased their power to influence affairs. In the UK also there is the case of Sir Philip Green who has undoubtedly made himself rich at the expense of both the people who worked for his enterprise and the pension-fund dependents. Legal steps may reclaim some money for the latter but there is no doubt who will be the richer and undefended poorer as a result. It is an example of capitalism red in tooth and claw; and out of control.

Margaret Thatcher, in her long tenure as UK Prime Minister, made it socially OK (for everyone) to be rich. I personally have no quarrel with that (although many other quarrels with Thatcher's tenure). Unfortunately, as a side-effect, she seems to have made that a supremely desirable goal, without any clearly inferred corollaries on how riches are acquired. There is an unstated inference that riches should be acquired legally but within a legal system that is clearly inadequate to secure financial justice for those that need it. The overall impression is: get rich by any means that doesn't get caught by the legal system.

In Europe the Brexit vote has also delighted right-wing factions and added to their power. Moreover, apart from the attitude of Angela Merkel, it seems to have produced a reaction that can be summed up as: who cares, we'll carry on regardless. The high priests of the EU show no sign of recognising any need for reform. They, after all, have the power and intend to go on exercising it as they choose, without reference to unrest (and in some cases, indeed, very significant suffering) in EU countries as a result of their actions. The reaction of the EU Commission is analogous to Marie Antoinette's famous “so let them eat cake”, and you know what happened after that.

In the USA we have two unpopular Presidential candidates at least one of whom has shown willingness, indeed eagerness, to throw military might against any nation disapproved of.

The result seems to me to be an almost global polarisation in countries that have had large middle classes (it has long been apparent in Asia) between “haves” and “have nots” that are so far apart as to invite revolution, rioting in the streets, or worse, war, in and between nations who should know better. It's a combustible situation and I don't see any fire-fighters of stature. It's a depressing thought.

Chopsticks

The fact that the Chinese eat with chopsticks is well known. The Chinese, over many centuries, have also proven themselves to be a very inventive people. So why did they never invent forks? This remains for me one of the most challenging mysteries of the evolution of the world. The Chinese do have spoons; if you have ever attempted to eat soup (of which the Chinese have always had plenty) with chopsticks you will understand why. So why not forks? They are only a chopstick with three prongs after all and they greatly facilitate the ubiqitous action of scooping up food from some platter into the mouth. If you've ever seen someone eating rice with chopsticks (platter held close to the mouth, tossing rice in) it's immediately obvious how much easier that would be with a fork or even a spoon. So why do it that way? When I eat Chinese meals I always ask for a fork. I want to enjoy the meal, not go through contortions. I know some of my friends insist on chopsticks, to show their expertise in using them, a bravura show. That's OK but surely the Chinese wouldn't want to put on a bravura show every day of their lives. So why did an inventive people never come up with the simple idea of forks, a concept which many other peoples came up came with apparently quite easily?

Summer Celebrations, Nice and Brexit

Summer Celebrations

The summer celebrations here are in full swing. After the July 14^th knees-up there were the painters in the streets last weekend and and next weekend is the village fete. For me, disappointment with the July 14^th was counterbalanced by a better than usual experience of the painters. What I most appreciate about village celebrations is the carefree atmosphere, children, cats, dogs, old fogies and everyone else enjoying themselves and not afraid to make fools of themselves. That seemed to be absent on Bastille Day. The choice of band was probably wrong and anyway they didn't start playing until nearly 10.00pm; but that didn't entirely explain the total absence of any communal atmosphere. On the Saturday evening I strolled through the market that takes place in the village in July and August and perused the paintings on display. I found them of a much higher quality than in the past, with much less tourist tat on show (paintings of lavender, sunflowers, soulful children or pin-up women) and much more genuine art. The paintings I liked were all abstract but of good quality in terms of both their vision and their execution.

Nice

News of the carnage in Nice on the 14^th didn't arrive until the next day. The village was shocked, obviously, and duly observed the one-minute's silence asked for by President Hollande at midday today, Monday. A crowd of around 150 villagers gathered, appropriately in the 14^th of July Square, to observe the minute's silence but I was disappointed to notice that none of the muslim villagers were there. Those I know would certainly have shared the shock and disgust of the rest of the village but chose not to show their faces. Elsewhere I can imagine muslims fearing violence if they showed up at such a ceremony but that certainly wouldn't be the case here. And I feel, because Islam is currently so closely associated with acts of barbarism, that it is very important for peace-loving muslims to visibly show that they disown such acts. Being a silent majority won't stop islamophobia and may not be enough to stop the world plunging into the rerun of the historical crusades that the militant muslims seem to want. If there is a God who made homo sapiens, it would be beyond ironic if religion was the cause of his ultimate demise. Someone once said that if there is a God then religion is a cruel trick He played on mankind.

Brexit Footnote

Some of my French friends have asked me if the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary was an example of idiosyncratic British humour. I tell them yes, it's a joke.

Brexit: Xenophobia Loses

Brexit: Either Way, Xenophobia Loses

“Brexit means Brexit”, the UK's next prime minister, Theresa May, has said. She has to be believed because even if she calls a general election, as seems likely, she would be favourite to win it. The open question still is what kind of trade agreement she can negotiate with the EU.

I've been puzzling over what possible solution there can be to what seems to me an unresolvable conflict. The UK undoubtedly voted for close control of its borders; warnings of severe economic problems must have been dismissed as scaremongering by Leave voters and yet the adverse effects can already be seen and more are certain to come. Optimists may see the hits on the value of the pound and the stock markets as temporary setbacks but the right to service euro currency transactions has already been taken from the City and, just the other day, the Lush cosmetics company, which employs 1400 staff in the UK, announced an end to UK recruitment and that it was moving its main operation to Germany. There can only be more of that to come as as other companies that have their centre for European operations in the UK do the same; commercially it's the only move that makes sense.

So the UK urgently needs a good trade agreement with the EU but…………..every other trade agreement the EU has with non-European governments includes clauses that enforce open borders and acceptance of EU legislation as regards trade. Angela Merkel herself has said that that position cannot be compromised. So Theresa May has the following dilemma to resolve. Negotiate a good trade agreement and antagonise all those who voted for close border control or ditch a trade agreement and condemn the UK to an economic recession that could last decades. How can that possibly be resolved?

Either of those solutions can only split even further a country already in conflict wth itself. I've been able to think of only one possible fudge, just possible because all politicians love fudges that get them out of a hole and can be interpreted as triumphs or disasters (“those two impostors”, Kipling) at will. The EU itself could bail the UK out, even if it doesn't feel like doing so. The idea of immigration quotas has already been discussed within the EU with respect to settlement of Syrian refugees and immigration control is an urgent issue within all EU countries. So suppose the EU sticks with its open borders policy (it can't realistically do anythng else) but allows quotas to be set on the number of immigrants allowed per year, as a sop to cool down the immigration debate within the EU? I've no real idea what the numbers would be but they would have to be in the hundreds of thousands for a country such as the UK. Theresa May could then negotiate a quota as part of a trade agreement and claim she had got back control of the UK's borders: a total fudge of course but that's politics and I can't see any other way out.

So the UK will have had it's triumph of jingoism over serious thought and its tantrum over the EU but, as ever, reality strikes back. Xenophobia cannot win because the UK can't afford it.

Post Brexit And Play

The Importance Of Play

There's something about the French that I've been struggling to put into word for years, such as why I enjoy village festivities and the social life here so much: some core characteristic that appeals to me. The answer came to me when I was shaving a few mornings ago. (It's surprising how many insights come when one is shaving, having a bath or shower or sitting on the loo, maybe because the brain then needs something to occupy it. I think it is quite a common experience.) Anyway, I remembered reading a travel article years ago about some French resort in which the author wrote: “The French at play are a heart-warming sight; the French know how to play”.

That is key for me. The same may be true of some other cultures (the Balinese come to mind) and the reason I find it a key characteristic is that I am British and we Brits are not that good at play. Maybe it is our Calvinistic heritage that inhibits us but inhibited we certainly are. At play we tend to be self-conscious, awkward and slightly embarassed. In order to play whole-heartedly we feel the need first to shed these inhibitions, which is probably why Brits on holiday so often get drunk and unpleasant.

A S Neill, progenitor of Summerhill school, always insisted on the fundamental importance of play, saying that it was not the opposite of time at school spent learning but, indeed, key to learning, to learning how to become a social animal in a democratic society. Paradoxically, it was the British Victorians who first thought of the usefulness of play in school time and brought it into school time-tables in the form sport. But they regarded it as a character-forming exercise of another sort, instilling discipline, courage, endeavour, etc, following rules rather than eschewing them: a very Calvinistic form of play. Neill's version of play was the diametric opposite.

Anyway, for me, the French have the answer, a form of play that is uninhibited but neither hedonistic nor alcohol-fuelled and out of control. That is what I enjoy.

Post Brexit

I am very reluctantly coming to accept that the Brexit decision will most probably be final and I detect that many other commentators with similar preferences are coming to the same conclusion. Speculating on outcomes (sic) will be the big media game over the next few months so here is my first cut at it. (It's raining and there is no football on TV this afternoon so I'm in writing mode.)

My objective reasons for wanting Remain to win (excluding personal convenience) were partly adherence to the ideal of a united Europe with Britain in it, albeit a Europe of a somewhat different sort to that sought by the Commission, and partly economic; I believed, and still do, that the UK economy would be far stronger within the EU than outside it. There is also a side-effect which I very much hope is unwanted by all but a tiny minority, so let's deal with that first.

The side-effect is racism. A minority (very small, I frevently hope) in the UK have taken the Brexit result to mean it's open house on race hatred. A 57% increase in race-related crime has been reported over the last 10 days. This may be short-lived but will only be so if the authorities crack down exceedingly hard on it. Will they or will xenophobia rule? If the latter is the case, I shan't want to know the UK any more.

The united Europe ideal still holds for me even without the UK so I hope the EU doesn't disintegrate. I never bought the idea that the EU stopped war in Europe. After World War 2 no country in Europe was in a state to declare war on another and, indeed, there was a considerable incentive to present a united front against Russia. Also, the EU did and could do nothing about the subsequent war in the Balkans, which happen to be in Europe. I do believe, though, that the EU has helped provide a solid platform for peace and does so also for close cooperation between countries on numerous fronts. All that can only be good.

However, if the EU is to hold together there will have to be important reforms. In particular, it has to get a grip on immigration. There is too much discontent in the remaining 27 countries to avoid disintegration without reform. Leaving the euro aside, although that will have to be reformed too, I expect far more input from elected representatives one way or another and a curbing of the powers of the Commission. The dreamers can dream on but will be called to account by European electorates. An obvious and fairly painless reform is to allow all EU countries the kind of opt out clauses the UK has and probably some more, bringing about a kind of mixed-speed Europe. Integration would be piecemeal, varying on different matters from country to country.

In the near future, for the UK certainly, for the EU probably and maybe globally there will be an economic downturn. That's easy to say as it is already happening. The question for the UK is how deep and for how long the recession will go. I don't expect dramatic economic consequences yet but I do expect a continuous weakening of the UK economy, in particular if the government sticks on wanting tight border controls. That would be a double whammy. The World Bank, etc, have already stated reduced immigrant input as one reason for downgrading the UK's economic status and lack of a trade agreement with the EU would certainly be another.  I expect a large number of jobs to be lost over time as business centres gradually move out of the UK and fewer new jobs to be created. That must mean less public spending and higher taxes, as George Osborne has already pointed out, to make up the deficit. It's surely a survivable but not a rosy prospect. The UK could and probably would join EFTA (European Free Trade Association), comprising the European countries outside the EU but that is hardly an economic group of any importance. If (there are going to be lots of “ifs” over the next few months) Denmark and Sweden also get pissed off with the EU, opt out and join EFTA, then that would be better, although the EU will certainly take steps to counter this. So the economic situation is survivable but still not rosy.

The immigration issue is key. Get that wrong and not just the UK but the whole of Europe could be in for a long hard winter.

That is my initial reading of the likely outcome of Brexit. It would be helped if we had any politicians of staure to get us through the mess but, currently, the UK is a would-be great nation led by political pygmies with only more pygmies to replace them.

The Importance Of Dubito

The Importance Of Dubito (I Doubt)

Everyone, at least everyone who's been through a sixth-form school programme, knows or should know the French philosopher Descartes' famous proposition “I think therefore I am” (“cogito ergo sum” if you are OK with the Latin). In fact that is not logically complete as a proposition, but never mind that; what is important is that it is not the entirety of what Descartes said. His full proposition was “dubito ergo cogito ergo sum”, “I doubt therefore I think therefore I am”. What's so important? That the first step is to doubt, question.

Why is this relevant now? Because, like it or not, we Brits are engaged now, and will be for some months at least ahead of us, in a propaganda war about Brexit. What is acknowledged as the first casualty in any war, particularly a propaganda one? The truth. So what should we do? We need our “dubito”; whatever we think we read, hear, see, from any source, we need to doubt, to question it. Sorry about that but we are going to have to think, and think hard, for ourselves.

The point occurred to me because I came across a story in one of the tabloids about a Romanian refugee family in London, beggars all, living under some road bridge and swigging vodka (vodka ice, to be precise). The established facts are that the peasant family came to England expecting a land of milk and honey, found that was very far from the case and want to go back but can't afford the fare. So what's the newspaper story? The story offered is that here's a family of Romanian immigrants, in London because of the EU open borders policy, making a living through begging and doing well enough to be able to afford vodka (ice); i.e. not just managing to feed their kids and get by on crusts of bread. The story struck me because I immediately thought of an alternative version.

I've no idea whether this is true but it fits the known facts equally well. The Editor of a tabloid with an agenda of immigrant bashing needs another headline story. The existence of the Romanian family under the road bridge has already been reported and is known. So he says to one of his reporters: “Go find this family, buy a bottle of vodka (ice), and give it to them. You can say 'Welcome to England' or whatever to explain the gift. Get them drinking it and take a photo and, bingo, I've got my headline story.”

As I've said, I've no idea whether this is the true story but it could as well be as the published story. So what do we conclude? We can only conclude, if we are thinking straight, that we don't really know. We don't know the truth because that's not what the newspaper considers relevant here; as I've said, that's the first casualty in our propaganda war. That's not very helpful but it does suggest a way forward. The first thing to ask in this propaganda war is what is the political agenda of the newspaper, TV station or whatever reporting the story. Because you can bet there is a slant on it, maybe even a total fabrication, and the slant will be in favour of their political agenda. Allow for that and ask yourself what facts, if any, can be established and what other possible explanations/interpretations of the story there could be. That's all you can do but, above all, do not simply accept what you read or hear as fact from any source without questioning it.

Remember……..dubito, dubito, dubito. And THINK.

More Reflection

More Reflection

I have been angry about the referendum result but I am now finding the situation more and more hilarious. Is it possible, just possible, that Lewis Carroll had a premonition about Brexit when he wrote Alice In Wonderland, but decided to tone down the fantasy a bit? Curioser and curioser doesn't come close to getting it.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has just announced that there will inevitably have to be higher taxes and public spending cuts (more than those already planned, that is). Never mind what happened to that chimerical £350 million, he was quite definite, even a little smug about it. Has any Chancellor, ever in history before, anywhere in the world in a democrary, announced both increased taxes and spending cuts at the same time, being definite about it (and possibly a little smug)? I think we have a world first record there. What's more, this was voted for by the electorate; surely another history-making world first. If Leave voters weren't quite sure what they were voting for when they voted, they do now.

It doesn't stop there, not by any means. It turns out that the areas that voted Leave most solidly are those most dependent economically on the EU. In effect, voters voted solidly for job losses. In France, Francois Hollande must be green with envy and tearing his hair (not that we Brits would mind that, of course). What wouldn't he give for a majority who would vote for job losses (and higher taxes and public spending cuts)! He's facing strikes and outright rebellion when he tries to tinker even mildly with the labout laws. I think we're going to need extra security around abattoirs come December to deal with hordes of turkeys beating on the gates and demanding to have their heads cut off for Christmas.

Don't go away yet; I haven't finished. I think we can reasonably guess that many of the Leave voters may feel they have been conned. There is to be new government leadership shortly; guess who the candidates will be? Who else can it be but the conmen? The UK being a democracy, there will be a vote at some stage and the conned electorate will be invited to vote for the conmen. You couldn't make it up!

As a very minor footnote I played boules this afternoon and was ribbed by my French friends about the England vs Iceland football debacle. I tried to persuade them that England had lost deliberately, to make the next round easier for our French friends. They didn't believe me. I don't know why; I'm sure I would have been believed in England.

Reflection

Time For Reflection

David Cameron's refusal to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome has allowed time for reflection. Some EU leaders are calling for immediate negotiations but they are powerless to impose them. Yes, the UK does still have a good measure of independence. So, let's reflect.

It is becoming clearer by the day that the UK is now in some form of cloud cuckoo land. Nobody has any clear idea about what may happen in the near future; anyone can make claims and predictions and no one can refute them because there is little or no hard information to back any of them. We really are in uncharted waters; so let's have a look at how we got there and what little we do know from the sketchy outline charts that we have.

The EU referendum was promised by David Cameron before the last general election as a sop to the right-wing of his party and to appeal to the populist vote. How ironic then that populism is exactly what has caused his resignation. What happened in the run up to the referendum can be summed up by paraphrasing Winston Churchill: never before was so much done by so few to misinform so many. The touted savings on leaving the EU, the trumpeted £350 million per week paid to the EU (it's actually £163 million nett, but never mind the odd £100 million) is now conveniently being disowned by Nigel Farage and never was going to be a total saving anyway. The absolute conflict between control of borders and a trade agreement with the EU, which now splits the MPs in favour of leaving the EU completely in two (half want border control, half want a trade agreement), was never explained to the electorate. Allow free movement of labour or 40% of your exports face tariff barriers. It's as simple as that; the rules of the common market (unique market, actually, is its official name) state that. If a Labour party leader such as Corbyn had blythly stated he would spend an extra £350 million on the NHS with no hard evidence to back it, who would have believed him, who would not have asked where the money would come from? What happened to people's brains? How did all this go unexplained?

Well, few ever took the possibility of a vote for exit seriously. Most of Europe certainly didn't; they thought it was a peculiarly British side-show for peculiarly British reasons. It turns out that many voters in the UK who voted Leave took the same view; their cries of anguish in letters to newspapers and TV interviews that”we never thought we would actually leave” are everywhere. This was all just a fun exercise to play around with; so why bother with hard information? So the political powers in favour of Remain did little, certainly nowhere near enough. The Leave campaigners were free to proclaim emotive ambitions such as more democracy, control and independence (and more money), always populist vote-getters, to their hearts' content.

There is a known problem with referenda, which is why we almost never have them. Given single issues to vote on, a majority of any populace will be inclined to vote for the impossible. Asked to vote for lower or higher taxes, who wouldn't vote for the former? Asked then to vote for better or worse public services, who wouldn't vote for the former too. So you can easily win referenda, the problem is all about how you deliver, the fact that so often you can't.

And then the result came in……...A problem with such grand ambitions as greater democracy etc, that have so much appeal and trip so easily off the tongue, is that they need a known solid agenda behind them, strategies, actions to be taken that will achieve them, actions that can be seen to be possible and to deliver. Everyone knows this, as these kinds of questions are always posed about pre-general election promises made by politicians: how are you going to do it? The answers are known as a political manifesto, which parties publish before a general election. So where are the answers, the political manifesto for Brexit? It turns out they don't exist, at least as far as anyone knows. For the first time in living memory the UK voted en masse for a pig in a poke. Farage and Johnson are thus far remarkably quiet on the subject. In fact both are doing a good impression of having got themselves into a situation that they have no idea what to do with. They have dangled the vision of a promised land in front of voters and the voters have gone for it. But where exactly is it in our uncharted waters? Er, well, it's uncharted actually. But Columbus, looking for a northern sea route to India and China did find America (more or less); you never know your luck. Anyway, it's all just a fun game.

Except that it isn't. It happens to be just the most important decision the UK has had to take about its future in decades, based on about as much good information as Columbus had when he set off for India and China (yes, India and China, not America).

It now looks as though the UK may, just may, have made an awful mistake, conceivably the greatest mistake in its recent history for not just ourselves but also our progeny. Rather than just stick with a situation we all grumble about, but might reasonably hope to improve gradually, we've chosen to sail into uncharted waters, with progeny on board. If, in our short period of reflection, we decide this is indeed a huge mistake, what can we do?

By a supreme irony of ironies, the answer could just have been supplied by the Leave campaign. Nigel Farage, anticipating rejection in this fun exercise, had already stated that he would demand a second referendum if the result was within about 4%. It was. An eager Leave follower accordingly put up a website displaying a petition to Parliament for a second referendum. He said it attracted no interest before the referendum result. It has now though. Some two million people and counting have signed it within 48 hours, asking Parliament for a second referendum; all of them Remainers. If you realise that, for whatever reason, you've voted for the impossible or even a shot in the dark, what else would you do? Parliament of course decides but……….if you are in a situation that you've no idea what to do about and you are offered a possible way out, why not take it?

Friends' Reaction

My French and other European friends here reacted much as I did: with stupefaction. Britons have a reputation abroad for eccentrcity but not for outright stupidity. They simply could not believe that the UK could be so stupid. There is xenophobia here, of course, but never on such a gigantic scale. All the people I know here, rather than jeer or give me the cold shoulder, have expressed deep sympathy and continued support: they want me in France even if the UK doesn't want to be in Europe.

Black Friday

Black Friday

So the Brexit voters have won, certainly for the moment and maybe forever. Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome will be invoked to start the UK's exit process. The Article is unclear on whether the exit process, once started, can be stopped and reversed but that remains the one straw for people like myself to clutch at. Maybe……….if the terms of exit prove unacceptable even to a right-wing Conservative Britain, just maybe the UK can still stay in the EU. Much may depend on whether the remaining 27 EU countries want to retain the UK enough to try last-ditch persuasion or whether they simply can't be bothered any more.

I find it ironic that, to claims of more democracy, populism, the big weakness of democracy, has won. Who really has won? Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, obviously, and the tabloid comics such as The Sun, The Express, The Star and The Mail. Oh, and Donald Trump and Sarah Palin from the USA have expressed their approval. By their friends shall ye know them.  Above all, xenophobia has won.

Who has lost? Just about everybody else, in the near future. The UK just got smaller in importance on the world stage and may even get physically smaller if Scotland springs a new referendum and votes to leave the UK. Less probably, but possibly, Northern Ireland may just vote to merge with its southern half in order to stay in the EU. Still less likely, but possible, are moves already taking place for London to declare itself an independent city.

The UK economy loses, with growth forecasts from the major economic bodies all downgraded, the FTSE 100 down 8% and the pound at its lowest for more than a decade. Private sector employment in the UK must suffer too, as foreign-owned multinationals move their UK-based operations serving Europe into EU countries. The CEO of JP Morgan is on the record, about a week ago, as pointing out it employs some 3500-4000 people in London to service the European market. If the UK voted Leave, he said, that operation would have to be moved to Europe. How many staff would need to be retained to service just the UK market? Friend Steve commented, on learning that Sunderland, with its Nissan car plant employing thousands making cars for Europe, had voted Leave: “It must be the first time that turkeys have voted for Christmas”.

Another irony is that, with even more austerity and cuts looming, a new army of civil servants will be required for, among other things, increased border controls with quite probably no different terms for entry, to negotiate EU exit terms and to negotiate separate trade agreements with some 100 countries which are currently covered by EU agreements. I wonder how that lot are going to be paid for? Increased spending on the NHS……..Where is Boris Johnson going to get his promised £350 million?

Europe also loses. Chaos will threaten for a time. The overbearing interventionist bureaucracy in Brussels will now certainly be overhauled, if only to avoid demands for referenda in other countries. But the EU will survive; the political will for that is too great for it not to. The result is likely to be a much looser Union, quite probably a two-tier Europe with countries all having opt-out clauses for any central legislation they find unpalatable. Probably the power of the Commission will be curtailed and that of the elected European Parliament increased. In fact, exactly my worst-case scenario, the EU we always wanted with us outside it.

The EU also retains some strengths, in particular its bargaining position with the UK. It's opening position will certainly be that everything remains the same except that the UK has no say in its future legislation. But the UK will have to accept that legislation and pay (significant) amounts to the EU. That is the case with Norway and Switzerland, the other European countries outside the EU with which it has trade agreements. I have previously pointed out that the immigration situation remains the same, in or out; open movement of labour will have to be maintained. That also is a condition of other EU trade agreements. The alternative to agreeing to these conditions? No trade agreement. Some 40% of British exports go to the EU and will then have to find other markets somewhere in the world or suffer a tariff barrier. Cheaper than China, India? England is, and always has been, a nation that lives off its exports; it has few natural resources. It imports, makes and trades. Imports will cost more (devalued pound) and exports will hit tariffs. A stronger economic Britain?

I have one economic hope. It is that the rising cost of living (through weaker pound and imports), rising unemployment (as pointed out) and increased public sector costs will hit home early, in time for this decision to be reversed. Otherwise I can forsee only economic misery for the UK. Whether those who voted Leave in the belief that Britain will be stronger are right remains to be seen. The financial markets can't see it, which is why they called the referendum result wrongly; they didn't think Britain would vote for economic suicide. And if this is simply the result of some people being irritated by annoying legislative details or thinking there are too many Polish plumbers in their locality (a situation that won't change, as pointed out) then this decision will indeed be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

What about little old me? I shall try for French citizenship, for which I qualify in principle. So goodbye Little Britain. I knew you when you were a country of which I could be proud to be a citizen.