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.