Brexit: Current Thoughts

Brexit: Resume Of Current Thoughts

I've been reluctntly coming to the conclusion that a «hard» Brexit has to be the most likely outcome unless…...……………..

I'll take you through the thinking process. Firstly, May can't agree anything by herself; the best she can do is come up with a proposal that she thinks will be acceptable to the EU. Secondly, Barnier can't agree anything by himself; the most he can do is get from May a proposal he thinks may be acceptable to the EU. What if that happens? If I understand the process correctly, the proposal has then to go to the EU Parliament and to each of the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries, each of which has an individual veto. The proposal could get through but I wonder what odds any bookmaker would give on it doing so. I doubt that the odds would be attractive.

How did we get into this situation and how can we get out of it? We got into it undoubtedly because two years of supposed negotiations have achieved nothing. I say «supposed» because I believe, although I can't prove it, that chief UK negotiator David Davis never had any intention of coming to any agreement; I believe (and again can't prove it) that he wanted and intended a «hard» Brexit.. He has been criticised in some of the media for laziness and lack of preparedness but I believe that was intentional on his part. With accusations of treason popular in the UK gutter press re opposition to Brexit, where does agreeing to undertake an assignment intending to defeat it come?Anyway, the result is that we have run out of time.

So what can be done to recover the situation? A «hard» Brexit would, by general consent, be catastrophic for the UK economy in the short to medium term but also noticeably damage the EU economy, so neither side really wants that. What could happen (a forlorn hope?) is that May goes to the EU, lays her cards on the table and says something like «we are in a mess and need more time to sort this; can we have more time?». What would the likely EU response be? I suspect the EU would take a hard line and say that the UK is either in or out in March next year and the UK has to decide on that. The UK would then be faced with two choices: face a «hard» Brexit and its consequences or vote to stay in the EU for the moment, (by no means certain to get UK Parliamentary approval) and face a probable second referendum.

An alternative, of course, is that some agreement is reached over the next 6 months that meets approval in the UK Parliament, the EU Parliament and the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries.

It's not a pretty picture but that is how I see it at the moment.

To Hell With The Country, Party Poltical Power Politics Rule

To Hell With The Country, Party Political Power Politics Rule

The news that Theresa May has taken personal charge of the Brexit negotiations I take to be a good sign, in as far as anything concerned with Brexit can be termed good. It hadn't occurred to me before but a possible reason that negotiations with the EU have been going nowhere is that that is precisely what the hard-line Brexiteers intended: a no-deal exit. That, as is generally acknowledged, would be catastrophic for British commerce and industry, traditional supporters of the Conservative party, in the short to medium term (20-50 years even in the estimation of arch-Brexiteer Rees-Mogg?) and Theresa May is unwilling to lose that support. Hence her take-over of the negotiations. What then happens, as some kind of deal acceptable to the EU makes its appearance in Parliament, is anyone's guess. Much will depend on the attitude of Labour's Corbyn to any proposed deal, and since he is off with fairies on a cloud somewhere above his ivory tower, that too has to be anyone's guess. The eventual result, no doubt the crux of the negotiations here on in, is what can be presumed to obtain a majority approval in the British Parliament and be acceptable to the EU.

What should be abundantly clear in all this is that the welfare of Britain is the least of concerns of anyone in power in the UK. Prognosticators on all sides seem to agree that Brexit will damage the UK and that is OK with both of the main political parties. All previous appeals to patriotism, sovereignty, taking control, etc, can now been seen as in truth the window-dressing they always were. What is at stake for the politicians is not the country but their power in the party political battle. With the British public presented with a choice between political extremes of right and left, and no one of significance in the middle, moderate ground, the interests of the country can go hang.

I find that very sad. In practical terms, it may (or may not, depending on the eventual outcome), matter to me very much, but our children and grandchildren will have to live with the result of a purely temporary, sordid little party political power struggle. And it looks as though nobody in political power in the UK, the guardians of the country's welfare, cares.

Brexit Update

Brexit Update

Oh the irony of it! Cameron promised a referendum on the EU in 2016 to avoid a split in the Conservative party and the referendum has become the cause of that split. The circus clowns were going to have their day anyway and now they are having it. Boris Johnson is right in one respect: May's Brexit proposals please no one, neither those who voted Remain nor a considerable proportion of those who voted Leave. It must be obvious to a blind man that there is now no real desire on the part of the British people for any realistic form of Brexit. The right-wing fantasies, given sway by chicanery and probable electoral fraud, have been exposed as such. So what poliician now can, with a straight face, call the referendum result «the will of the people»?

It is very difficult not to conclude that the will of the people now is, albeit perhaps reluctantly, to stay in the EU. Politicians rightly say that they should represent the will of the people but how many of them will represnt that will now? How many of them will have the courage to put the welfare of the country and its peoples' wishes before their own political ambitions? We will see over the coming weeks.

Brave New World

Brave New World

After watching England's football team (mercifully but deservedly) beat Tunisia in the last few minutes two nights ago I spent a very enjoyable hour on my balcony, calvados in hand and breathing in the scent of the jasmine all around me (see photo), and got to wondering about the rôle of the middle classes in a society. I'm not sure why that thought occurred, although I am very conscious of a battle that seems to me to be going on for supremacy between the extreme right and the middle ground in Europe (and elsewhere).

I immediately recalled something that a Ghanaian student had said to me at Bristol university in the early 1960s. At the time, the Ghanaian president Nkrumah was busy slaughtering the middle classes in his country in order to cement his power. She said, ruefully: “At least it shows we have a middle class”. Why was that important? Because at the time most of the rest of the post-colonial, recently independent countries were engaged in conflict between extreme right and left-wing contenders for power, promoted by external capitalist/communist influences. They didn't have a middle class.

So what is the significance of a middle class, in Napoleon's scornful terms Britain's “shopkeepers”? According to George Bernard Shaw it was the bastion of morality (of a sort). GBS said that only the middle classes valued morality; the rich didn't need it and the poor couldn't afford it. And the middle classes, the bourgeousie, were widely ridiculed in artistic circles for their presumed philistinism; they rejected art that was extreme in any sense, irrespective of its artistic value, and embraced what was unchallenging. In general, the middle classes got a poor Press, neither one thing nor the other, portrayed as having no aesthetic sensibilities and as having aspirations only to distinguish themselves from the lower classes and aspiring to (slavishly aping ) the upper classes. This was the stereotypical picture of the middle classes in a lot of Europe in the (post-war) 1950s.

Someone significant (shame on me, I can't remember who) once said that all important battles have to be fought continually; they are never truly resolved. That is most certainly true of democracy. And, I think, the role of the middle classes in democracy is now more important than ever. Philistines to art and the possibilities of how life might be lived (keep the aspidistra flying) they may be, though not necessarily, but they are the bastions that keep extremes of political greed and power at bay. They also, almost innocently, assumed the importance and general acceptance of standards: honesty, integrity, moderation (and, OK, often God and the Queen and so on but so what). And no one believes that they always adhered to these “principles” but they did assert the importance of them. I believe that that assertion (in practice or not) had great importance in itself.

What I think is happening in our brave new world is that this “innocence” persists in middle classes but has become increasingly different from reality and blinds them to that reality. You could believe (and did) in what you read in newspapers, heard on the radio or saw on TV. OK, there were slightly different slants/angles but you could generally accept the substance as true. You most certainly can't now. There was a pride in the journalistic profession that journalists checked facts and gave reasoned opinions on them; that is most certainly no longer true. The distinction, once the “credo” of The Times newspaper, between the facts and the opinion, has long gone. There was a belief that institutions such as the BBC was independent and would report accurately and fairly, overlooking (innocently) its dependence on the government for budget. Broadly, you believed what you heard and saw and that, generally, wasn't too far from reality. You believed that your local MP did have the interests of his/her constituency at heart, whatever the conflict of views. The assumed standards prevailed. Only a true innocent or ignoramus would believe that now.

What, in contrast, we have now is “nature red in tooth and claw”. The power struggles are naked; lies repeated ad nauseam can become accepted as fact. But persisting innocence makes the middle classes blind to them and, perhaps, to the power that the middle classes have in a democracy if wielded as a collectivity. I think we need the middle classes and their value of standards more than ever now but we also need the middle classes to lose their innocence and wake up to the new reality.

Society, Community And The Politics Of The Pigs' Troth

Society, Community And The politics Of The Pig's Troth

I had some friends around to eat the other night, among them friend Nick who lives just along the road. We ended up, over coffee and calvados, reminiscing about our childhood. Both of us had what could today be called a deprived childhood, although neither of us wanted to claim that, but it certainly wasn't privileged. It was both happy and innocent but involved actions that today could have called down the wrath of authorities, court cases and who knows what else. So exactly what has changed, and made things worse?

I think there are three basic causes. one is political correctness, another is the politics of the pigs' troth and the third is a lack of any sense of society and community.

In our youngest days (and I speak here without Nick's specific if perhaps general consent) we would try to see a girl's knickers, claiming to be one up if we did so, and girls would collapse giggling if they saw a boy's penis (or nearly). So what? It's what kids of 7-8 do, isn't it? They're curious and want to get one-up on their mates. But a boy bending down to see a girl's knickers or flipping up her skirt, or a girl doing something to see a boy's underpants /penis is technically a sexual assault. Similarly, a kid scrumping apples/pears/cherries even flowers (which we all did; I well remember pinching a rose from someone's garden to give to a girlfriend) is technically theft but would be met with a thick ear if you were caught. There was never any question of making a court case out of such routine occurrences. Of course there were paedophiles then, as there are now, but then you lived in a community who knew who the paedophiles were and kids were warned to stay clear of them. It wasn't watertight prevention but was generally effective.

A clue? I've used the word “technically” twice and that is what the political correctness adherents do. They advocate that what is technically true has to be the truth and want the full force of the law to back them. To what end? To prove that they are right, whatever the social consequences; necessary at the time, perhaps they would claim, in denial of the consequences.

If this is music to the ears of anyone it is to those of unscrupulous lawyers and insurance companies. Lawyers want legal challenges; that is their source of revenue. Insurance companies want risks you might be persuaded to insure against.

Which leads me to the politics of the pig's troth, of which unscrupulous lawyers and insurance companies are only part. When Nick and I were young there were numerous trades, disciplines, potential careers apparently available; but just making money wasn't obviously one of them. You made money if you were successful in your career. Now, making money is a career in itself (means irrelevant) in an analogy to those people who, by general consent, are famous for being famous rather than for anything exceptional that they have done.

Once making money becomes a career (means irrelevant), the idea of achievement in any field becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter how good you are, at anything, what matters is how much money you make, by fair means or foul. So we have the rip-off society, which ignores all social consequences. Society is dismissed. It is a hymn to Thatcherism, “there is no such thing as society”.

Mitterand once said that “nationalism is war”. The same could be said of a lack of any sense of society or community, as is evidenced in numerous suburbs of large towns around Europe. In the place of community and society, destructive gangs proliferate, feeding off their own. “Alienation” is the word always used there. So, we need to get rid of aliens? Or do we need to build a consciousness of the importance of society and community?

Days Of Boules And Roses

Boules

I went to the regional boules championships last week and, as usual, spent an agreeable few days with the regional championship regulars. My team didn't do that well but we will never know exactly how well. The regional President of the national boules association gave a (too) long speech at the beginning saying nothing of relevance except not to beat him up and to play in a good spirit. It wasn't clear at the time why anyone should want to beat him up but became so very shortly afterwards when it turned out that he had changed the system for deciding teams positions at the end of the championships. Few players, if any, understood the new system and it seemed that the officials didn't either. Only the top ten teams were given their positions and we weren't one of them. So the President's actions served simply to ensure that the players were pissed off and wanted to beat him up, the opposites of what he stated as his objectives. I think that properly qualifies him as what the French commonly know as a “vieux con”. It also made me reflect, not for the first time, that to appreciate Provençal methods of organisation a good understanding of chaos theory is required. Whenever I made public speeches I always wanted feedback; the honourable President clearly doesn't but someone should tell him he needs it.

The trip was nonetheless very enjoyable. Michel, who drove me and his wife and friend Jacques to Gréoux, in the Alpes de Haute Provence where the championships were held, chose a “straight line” route through the Alps' foothills just north of here. It took us through country that I hadn't seen before and where lavender fields stretched from horizon to horizon. I made a mental note to return there sometime in the summer when the lavender is in bloom; it must be a magnificent sight (and smell). The height we were at, well over 1000 ft, suggested that what was growing was what the French call “lavende” rather than “lavendin”. I'm unclear about the distinction (both look the same) but understand that the former keeps its colour longer when dried and has a milder smell. However, “lavende” apparently grows well only in land at over 1000 ft and fetches a much higher price in the markets so I presumed that that was what I was seeing. However, when I buy lavender oil I buy the “lavendin” variety. My nose can't detect the subtle distinction in smell between the two and the “lavendin” oil is both much cheaper and more intense.

Roses, Roses, Roses

They are one of my favourite flowers, a preference that I probably share with very many others. So here are photos of some of those that I have. The first two photos show the two roses I have climbing over the arch at the back of my garden; the yellow and white one is Pilgrim, the pink one Shropshire Lad, both from David Austin. The third photo is of two bush roses in my back garden; the yellow one is Graham Thomas and the copper-coloured one Pat Austin, again both from David Austin. I visited David Austin's garden some 20 years ago and it is an experience that every rose lover should surely experience at least one time in their lives. The other rose garden I remember from England with great affection is the walled garden at Mottisfont, in Hampshire, which is open to the public in June in the evenings, when the perfume of the roses, and the pinks and peonies planted below them, is at its strongest.

To supplement the roses both honeysuckles in the front are in full bloom (and I have roses in the front too, also in bloom, Penny Lane, Dublin Bay and The Fairy). The perfume on my balcony and around the front of the house in the evening is wonderful.

Clochemerle Country And Garden

Clochemerle Country And Occam's Razor

Friends Steve and Jo have just moved house, as readers of this blog will already know. So they have changed address (obviously). A problem is that the village has recently named all previously unnamed roads and given every house a number. These new names and numbers have been notified centrally to the government, as required, but not to any other body that may be involved, such as utility companies. That is the responsibility of the residents themselves. And this is where drop-down menus and the tick box mentality come in. Quite obviously, when you move house you have to have meters read and new addresses for bills notified. But…………..the utility companies have drop-down menus for addresses to be recorded and, since they haven't been informed of the new addresses they can't recognise them. In the case of Steve and Jo, they also have a right to a new identity card. Same problem; they have to register their address but from a drop-down menu that does not recognise their actual address. Problems, problems………….and what is the solution? It's easy; when new addresses are registered they should be made to update all relevant databases of addresses. Why doesn't that happen, automatically? Because someone isn't THINKING. Why not? Who gets paid to THINK about the work they do?

I am about to confront what I suspect may be a similar problem in submitting my request for French nationality. The submission form is quite clear on what proofs are required and I now have all the necessary documentation to hand. So what problem could there be, other than an outright refusal, which the French government has the right to make? Well.…………….Steve and Jo in their application were asked for information that was essentially superfluous; so the same could apply to me. That could, in the worst case, amount to more than a hundred pages and, in again the worst case, need translation from French into English by an officially qualified translator at an official rate of 65 euros per page. The result could be 5000+ euros of expenditure for no useful purpose. Obviously I'm hoping that this situation does not arise but…………..why should it ever be possible?

Occam's razor. Occam's razor proposes that the simplest solution to any problem is most probably the best. Above all, you eliminate what is superfluous. Is there a Civil Service in the world that applies it, at probably an enormous potential cost saving to the Civil Service itself? There are, around the world, numerous professors of administration. Do any of them have a project to produce some kind of algorithm/template that would enable a government to extract the maximum of the information it requires with the minimum of documentation? If not, why not? Oh, and if they did, would any government pay attention?

Political Analysis

I have to confess to being a tribal Labour voter, although I did vote Lib-Dem in despair at the last general election. Over the years, my political stance has become pragmatic rather than tribal (pace my ancestors). I've now come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the political future of the UK must lie with the Conservative Party. This is how I see it.

Power in the UK has always, at least for more or less 100 years, resided in which political party gains the support of most of the middle ground. At the current time, neither of the main political parties owns that and neither seems to be seeking it so the UK is crying out for a party that woos the middle ground. That has happened before, in the 1980s, when the Social Democrat party, subsequently merged with the Liberals, was formed by disenchanted Labour party heavyweights. The party had a short life and any such new party formed would most probably have a similar life. Why? Because such a party is really just waiting for either of the two main contenders, Labour or Conservative, to come to their senses, at which point it gets blown out of the water. So which of the main parties might first come to its senses?

Ed Milibrand changed the decisive vote for the election of the leader of the Labour Party from the elected MPs to the Party members. These are people who will vote for all desirable social measures but not necessarily realistic ones or ones that will find favour with the electorate at large. They are a force for the kind of revolutionary government for social change which had power in 1945. Whether they are desirable or not is a matter of personal opinion but they are definitely not the middle ground. And..………..the Labour Party at the moment is powerless to change that. As currently constituted, it cannot change unless it can change the profile of its party membership, which is not within its own power.

The Conservative party, as I see it at the moment, is a hostage to its extreme right wing. Theresa May, whatever her inclinations, cannot afford to offend the extreme right wing because a revolt by it would bring down the government. She can afford to offend the left wing of the party as long as she manages to avoid too many abstentions/adverse votes by her MPs. So that is what she is trying to do in order to cling to power (whatever the consequences). The consequences may well be that the Party loses the next general election but that is not the issue here; the issue here is whether the Party can change. And it can, whether it chooses to do so or not.

Am I exaggerating the importance of the middle ground? Given the extreme right wing measures of the current government, an extreme left wing spell could well legislate corrective measures that would be welcomed by many (me included). But, in the longer run…….? The Labour government of 1945 succeeded in some amazing achievements and had its share of revolutionaries but it also had its pragmatists. Despite them, it lost the next general election. Is there a Harold Wilson in the current party to save the day? If there is, he is most certainly, on the evidence to date, being sidelined; the dogmatists rule.

My House

The Banksia rose at the back has more or less finished blooming but there are plenty of other pleasing spots of colour waiting for the other rose bushes to come into bloom and supplement them. The photo below of the front of the house doesn't quite do it justice as the blue petunia surfinas in the hanging baskets don't show up because of the shade thrown by the lime trees opposite. I've asked the Mairie to prune the lime trees hard but without success so far; I'll get more insistent next year. The problem for me is that, because of the shade, I need in the front plants that will flower happily in it and there aren't so many of those. That accounts for the number of geraniums, which I don't particularly like. I try to avoid the cliché scarlet variety (in the worst possible taste according to Oscar Wilde) but geraniums there must be at the moment. Anyway, I've had the first tourist photographers of the season taking photos out front so it can't be that bad.