Kategori: Uncategorized

Months have gone by and ”strong and stable”, once the battle cry of the Tories, would be singularly misplaced as a trade mark for this  government´s negotiating stance. In fact if negotiating is indeed the correct word for something that is becoming more farcical every day. The quest for Theresa May´s ”deep and special relationship” with the EU is becoming more and more elusive. The 27 members of the EU have drawn up three red lines via their chief negotiator Michel Barnier. The so called divorce bill, citizen´s rights and the Irish border. These red lines being not in the form of concrete proposals but a statement that these issues must be satisfactorily resolved before negotiations on anything else can begin. In taking this approach the EU is showing an unwillingness to put itself into a situation that could easily get out of hand at a later stage and result in some undesirable consequences. Unpreparedly rushing into Article 50 as the British government did, should be warning enough.

The basics of successful negotiating are rather simple. You should: 1.Know what you want.  2.Thoroughly understand and stick to your red lines.  3.Have  a list of various acceptable compromises. This is really where the problem lies and the root of that problem is easily traced back to an inane question in the referendum a year ago. In itself the question was quite clear, as would a ”Remain” answer have been . ”Leave” on the other hand has caused quite a gaffufel underlining the theory it was an unexpected answer and has given rise to a few Tory headaches.

If somebody asked me if I ever thought of leaving my golf club, I would not be alone in understanding the consequences of such a decision e.g not having to pay the annual fees. Feigning surprise at suddenly not enjoying the club´s facilities nor being able to play the course would simply invite derision. Not so with the UK. Suddenly, leaving meant so many different things and great importance was attached to getting a ”good deal” to retain as many benefits as possible. Why leave in the first place you might ask?  It is becoming crystal clear though, amongst all the fudge, that a ”good deal” for Britain as a non member and one acceptable to the EU would be akin to watering your whisky and proudly exclaiming you don´t drink alcohol anymore. Much like a ”pretend Brexit.” In fact a scenario involving political abdication concerning membership, meaning no influence on EU lawmaking, might even result in the EU having more influence on the UK than before Brexit.

Understandably this kind of deal is not something your common or garden Brexiter would be over the moon about not to mention the Tory rabid right. From a business point of view this might be acceptable over a transition period but more than that it can hardly have appeal to anyone. At best it might be considered a reasonably good deal if coupled to talks on ”where do we go post transition” Now we are back to the EU´s three red lines. There will be no trade talks until the big three are resolved.  This is the Catch 22 that came as a result of hastily and arrogantly invoking Article 50. All three red lines are intrinsically coupled to the post Brexit ”deep and special relationship” and even though they are open-minded red lines they cannot be solved without revealing the nature of that relationship during transition and after. The likelihood of David Davis or Theresa May finding a solution acceptable to the EU, the Tory right-wing and the, key to the door, DUP are least said slight. With a ”good deal” not being within grasp, it boils down to Donald Tusk´s last two alternatives. Both might be considered quick fixes, at least in the short term.

The one a ”no deal,”  also referred to as the UK crashing out of the EU, is to many the answer that was implicit in the referendum. That may be so but analysing the information that answer was based on and the catastrophic economic and political consequences for the UK, there is little conviction in the argument that this is ”the will of the people.” If this ”no deal” was at anytime an alternative then Theresa May would have stood by her red lines concerning the budget bill, controlling immigration and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Last but not least ”no Brexit.” All things point to the possibility of this being an option, both legally and politically. The irony here is that the more damage the economy suffers before March 2019  the greater the likelihood of a ”no Brexit” yet also resulting in less domestic political damage as people begin to understand the ramifications of Donald Tusk´s first two alternatives. Revoking Article 50 will extricate the UK from the nightmare that the result of the referendum plunged the country into.  Much will be on track again but it will definitely not be a quick fix. The country is divided and even with a changed mood there will be resentment and a feeling that somebody shot the Unicorn. Theresa May will no longer be of interest, at best pitied. The Tory party, sullied by the likes of Boris Johnson who profess patriotism yet exhibit the opposite will need a makeover.  The ”no Brexit” UK  will no longer be facing economic purgatory but will have to do more to improve peoples lives, re-distribute income and put the disgusting tabloids and xenophobia in their place using the tools of economics, information and education. The world will stop laughing when the Brexit joke is over but never fear, like Suez, it will not be forgotten. Jeremy Corbyn talks about a ”Brexit for the many not the few.”

There is no such thing Jeremy but there is a ”No Brexit for the many not the few.”

Things are rapidly beginning to change. The enfant terrible of British politics has spent the summer months ensuring that nobody forgets just that. First by exclaiming that the EU can whistle for its money as the UK will not be sending a single Pound their way, not to mention a Euro;  then to undermining Theresa May´s Brexit gambit in the form of a previously announced game changing speech, by publishing a policy dictating article in the Daily Telegraph days before the speech. Theresa May´s speech held at the church of Santa Maria Novella, lovely name considering, had a great deal less substance than could be hoped for. Her words had little effect on EU officialdom most of whom were not in attendance anyway, despite a cautious leaving the door ajar for further constructive dialogue by conceding that Britain is actually prepared to settle some form of divorce settlement.

As far as the negotiations are concerned the speech added very little to moving anything forward to the, from a UK point of view very much desired, talks on future trading relations. What it did confirm however was that the Prime Minister was publicly leaving her position outlined in the Lancaster House speech including the ”no deal is better than a bad deal” and accepting that it is in the interests of the UK to come to some sort of arrangement even including a financial divorce settlement. Even with transition being the word of the day whatever flavour of Brexit other than a hard or cliff edge Brexit will mean accepting, in the short term more likely the long term, conditions that are anathema to a Tory Brexiter. Freedom of movement and the European Court of Justice are just two things that are inseparable from the single market which most people now concede is inseparable from the idea of a future prosperous UK.

Theresa May in her new approach to the whole Brexit process clearly backed away from the ”no deal is better than a bad deal” whilst putting her party in roughly the same Brexit muddle as Labour. She did however not mince words when it came to appeasing Brexiters, claiming the UK had never felt at home in Europe. Her unfortunate choice of words although not entirely believable considering her earlier Remain standpoint, painfully shows her inability to grasp the essence of successful leadership. Appeasing those in favour of something by ridiculing or insulting those who are not, results in a longterm lack of respect from all concerned.

I wouldn’t be the first to say that the UK´s current situation is in the main due to bad Tory leadership. On the other hand should there be another election we are far from guaranteed of getting  a Labour Prime Minister with more expertise on the subject, more like out of the frying pan…. What with the present Prime Minister doing her level best to exclude Parliament in whatever way possible and the Leader of the Opposition a maybe future Prime Minister stifling debate at the latest Labour Party Congress on the most vital question facing the UK since the second world war, one might wonder.

The irony is that Jeremy Corbyn sees the EU as a capitalist club standing in the way of true socialism and his view would seem to be that Brexit must be carried through to remove this encumbrance allowing the necessary political room to achieve his goal. The Tory right are in full agreement with Corbyn concerning this obstacle and also that EU legislation restricts their own political freedom albeit to the far right. What the man in the street means by ”we want our sovrinnty back” is anyone´s guess and it is more likely than not that he would feel extremely uncomfortable if he kew that the far right and the far left of British politics do not have his sovereignty in mind. Unfortunately for our two popular factions Brexit is not going well and there is an increasing awareness of there being ulterior motives when the promised mother of all firework displays turns out to be a damp squib. I might add that politicians who tell me an economic union covering over 40 years of successful co-operation can be ditched, replaced and surpassed in under 2 years should start working on their CVs; for cluelessness or cynicism, you choose.  Suddenly its all about damage control and we won’t be worse off. The fact that the far right and the far left have a similar anti EU agenda paints a clear picture putting the EU in a place I think most of us would prefer to be in.

Well, every cloud has a silver lining and somewhere between the two Cs, cynical and clueless lies the answer. This just cannot go on for much longer. A hard Brexit is off the cards as it lacks sufficient electoral support and a soft Brexit is nothing but a pretend Brexit. Not withstanding May and Corbyn, Brexit is dead and all that is required now is a signature on the death certificate. In my opinion it´s a toss up whether Parliament or a referendum on the final deal will do the signing. Whatever, I do believe Boris can go whistle for his Brexit.

Not exactly as  there has been an awful lot of quacking these last few weeks although nobody has actually managed to lay an egg yet.

The mood however is definitely changing, as people, the political establishment not excluded, have begun to realise the economic and political effects any sort of Brexit will have on the UK. Understanding this is one thing, admitting an understanding of this publicly is a clear indication that something is happening. When the Daily Mail headlines read that Brexiteers have lost the economic argument it makes you think.  I dare say anybody who is at all aware of the UK´s political position contra Europe is aware that the situation the country is in at the moment, is not only one of history´s greatest shambles but also an extremely serious one. It is bad leadership that got us into this and we are now in the process of watching that selfsame leadership struggle to find a way out. Now if you feel I am being unnecessarily harsh on Tory leadership then let me say my argument is underlined by the fact that they are actually trying to find a way out of this mess. Both the referendum and the 2017 election had more to do with Tory infighting and their inability to govern the country than anything else. Neither Cameron nor May got the answer they wanted and it became painfully obvious that they were both very surprised and totally unprepared. To add insult to injury neither of these electoral responses gave a clear indication of the path forward, that is if you discount the loony right´s wet dream of a tax paradise and the loony left´s ditto of a socialist paradise in the form of a total break with the EU i.e. a Hard Brexit or Cliff Edge Brexit. As if either of these would be guaranteed by a Brexit. The ball is, so to speak, fair and square back in the Tory court. What we are now witnessing is a struggle to set things straight. Given that this entails leaving the EU enough to appease Brexiters, not too much to upset the economic apple cart, keep an open border with the Republic of Ireland, pay enough divorce settlement to satisfy the EU without goading Brexiters and do all this without being accused by the EU of cherry picking, this exercise cannot be deemed as anything but futile. Again I shudder to think that Tory politicians are unaware of this and yet again it seems to me this futile struggling is all that is on offer in place of real leadership. If the question is, do the Tories need real leadership, the answer must be that whatever happens the party is at the end of its tether and will probably need years to recover. It is the UK that needs real leadership and at present it is the Tory party´s responsibility to unconditionally supply that leadership. There is no other way out of this than by admitting failure. That is not failure to leave the EU but failure to lead the country along the best possible path taking into consideration the wishes of its people. Admitting this and inhibiting Brexit would not be a U-turn but an admission of failure showing the kind of leadership the country is very much in need of right now.

Exactly 4 weeks have passed since my last text and although there have been no significant changes on the political stage there has been a considerable amount of shuffling in the wings. Theresa May is still Prime Minister with her DUP crutch and Jeremy Corbyn is continuing to embrace Brexit whereby offering people a deal with the EU that, if anything, lends support to the argument that he doesn´t know what he is talking about.
The once strong and stable and very predictable play has become an unrehearsed farce and no-one dare guess what´s going to happen next or who´s got what part. The prompter is shouting down the leading lady and reading from a text that has little resemblance to the earlier agreed upon script. Tories and Labour are still publicly hugging and kissing on Brexit yet with increasingly obvious distaste, not only for each other but also for a political stance that threatens their claim to power.
There has though been significant change on the whole atmosphere of Brexit. From ”Brexit means Brexit” or hard Brexit with or without a deal to soft Brexit with a variety of flavours. ”Brexit will not happen,” has also been added as a no longer crazy option as has, ”if we leave the EU” rather than ”when.” Of course Theresa May´s botched election has opened up for this but also very much the fact that the penny has finally dropped, together with the pound, as people are beginning to understand not only the great harm Brexit will do directly affecting more people than previously expected but also that it will not solve the problems that people worry most about.
Different polls, even one in the Daily Express, reflect the changing mood showing a majority for Remain. This change of mood is as yet not forceful or prolonged enough to be publicly acknowledged by the Tories or Labour but it is making life extremely difficult for both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, be sure of that.
Should this continue, the road to Brexit and the entailing disasters will have been taken despite ”the will of the people,” referendum or no and the cost of doing that requires little imagination. From a Remainer´s point of view the icing on the cake is that Parliament lacks a majority to support Brexit, there are even talks of a cross party revolt, not to mention the House of Lords, granted new political clout by the Tories minority manifesto.
So who will end Theresa and Jeremy´s gridlock? For the time being Labour has a strong hand and every wish to raise the stakes but pretending to have a full house with only 2 aces might turn into quite a problem. As for Theresa May the decision is unlikely to be hers. She is damaged goods beyond repair. Brexit has been likened to a bus over a cliff. That bus is still heading for the cliff with a confused driver and a bus conductor trying to find a way to appease squabbling passengers many more now voicing concerns about their destination. Most people are becoming aware that driving over the Brexit cliff is not the sensible thing to do. For this reason I am convinced there will be no Brexit. In fact I am convinced there will be no shade of Brexit whatsoever as the varieties of a soft Brexit are just not worth the effort, please no-one and leave the UK as politically emasculated as a hard Brexit. So, what happens now? The ball is in the Tory court and requires some nifty footwork. The choices? 1. Continue plugging Brexit with or without May, risking a general election, a Labour majority and no Brexit. 2. Sack May, change tack, admit that the consequences of Brexit would be too damaging for the country at the same time supporting the theory that the election was lost due to hard line Brexit and electorate regrets and then hang on. 3. Same as 1. only in the unlikely event that Labours succeeds in implementing Brexit, wait for the crash and pick up the pieces.
Brexit was to be exploited by both Labour and Tory to meet their own ends. To everyone’s surprise it has turned around and bitten them on the political backside and threatens to devour one or both of them in the future depending on the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it is painfully obvious that the UK needs a new political force that has the interests of its people at heart rather than ideologies of socialist utopia or raw capitalism.

The last few months of British politics have presented Brits and other Europeans not to mention a very interested world, a picture of how things should not be done if you intend being successful in business or politics or just keeping the kids in order at home. Obviously the stakes are different as are the rewards and falls. The methodology varies also but the basics of leadership simply cannot be ignored. The results of the referendum caused political turmoil and clearly showed that the people of the UK were divided on such a crucially important issue as membership of the EU. The internal disputes within the Tory party, to which the referendum was to put an end, had now spilled over and infected a nation. As a newly appointed Prime Minister Theresa May had a unique chance to prove herself as the leader of a whole country. It wasn’t as if any first steps towards analysing the situation and tentatively sounding the ground would have caused much of an uproar and even if it had, her leadership would not have been seriously questioned for inviting further dialogue. The referendum was advisory and its one question opened up for a hundred new questions leaving plenty of political space. The fact that the referendum result was so close is also a strong argument in democratic terms where major changes crave more than a simple majority. Even Theresa May´s mandate in parliament was such that an invitation to cross-party dialogue could hardly raise eyebrows and would enable her to marginalize her own most vociferous hard Brexiters. This course of action would also have been completely compatible with her having campaigned for Remain.
For whatever reasons none of this happened and Theresa May came down firmly on the Brexit side even hinting on a hard Brexit. The questions and the political dialogue she rejected and could have controlled if she had invited them, now blew up in her face. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, freedom of movement, financial crisis, etc. etc. Leading a country may be difficult but addressing people in that country so that everyone understands is a gift given to few. Short and simple with a lucid message. With ”Brexit means Brexit” Theresa May continued digging her hole. Anyone with the most rudimentary grasp of the English language from a 3 year old upwards would ask, ”what does the lady mean?” An understandable first reaction and a likely second reaction with a little afterthought. ”We don´t know what Brexit means, does she think we´re all stupid?”
”Strong and Stable” as a follow up when announcing her u-turn decision to hold an election didn’t help matters and the country became aware that it was ”Weak and Wobbly” refusing a TV debate with other party leaders. Just forgetting these rather silly sound bites for a moment the picture is becoming clearer that Theresa May has little inclination for dialogue. This is akin to a lifeguard afraid of the water. The election results came as a welcome surprise? Everybody lost but no one admitting it. Hung parliament, what is to be done? Theresa May was given a second albeit slim chance of showing she is a capable leader. Her answer? No mention of her lost majority, no humility, no respectful response to the people who did or did not vote for her. ”Lets get to work” on Brexit with the DUP. Theresa May isn´t listening, she is still busy digging her hole.
The inevitable: very soon she will be replaced as Prime Minister.
The obvious: she was never up to the job.

As a new follower of Twitter since January of this year I have become almost addicted to its political profile. The constant flow of information, disinformation, points of view, lies, facts, cartoons, jokes, political fun-making, cruel innuendo, sharp analysis, political codswallop etc etc. Twitter has just about everything and more often than not is completely up to date on many issues often giving me the feeling of being at the head of the information queue. My first week or so I lapped it all up only eventually beginning to realise the wisdom of exercising a certain degree of caution. Although outright lying is quite in fashion these days, all dressed up in its new suit of alternative facts, it is often easily recognised as such. There is though a large grey zone between the obvious porky and what might be considered as an undeniable fact. The things to watch out for are the untruths concealed by facts, like quicksands concealed by swirling mists on the moors. Sophisticated deception can be, just telling the truth. I think our society accepts and understand this and nowadays most people listen for the off-key note when a trumpet is blown on behalf of someone or something. Choosing toothpaste is easy and the cause of less anxiety than for instance buying a used car, a process which is more likely to be given a great deal more thought. Hopefully voting will merit even greater thought.

Regarding Brexit the one thing people seem to agree upon is that it will be a game changer. To what extent remains to be seen. Theresa May says categorically that she is the right person to lead the negotiations with Brussels. Strong and Stable is our leader, death or victory is her cause. Put that to music, bagpipes for the moment, and off we march. The swirling mist here is the strong and stable leader prepared for death or victory. There will be no ”bad deal” only a ”good deal” because we are prepared for death, sorry I mean ”no deal.” Theresa May talks of a strong hand based on good election results being the answer to helping her ”getting Brexit right.”  She even hints on the possibilities of not getting it right, more it seems to attract the extra votes than anything else. Helping our leader in her quest for ”getting it right” making Britain fairer, stronger and more prosperous should be our patriotic duty. Who can argue with that? Nice and cosy, all wrapped up. Would someone put the kettle on.

This is all very well but what actually do we know or think we know? ”Soft Brexit” will be some sort of special agreement with the EU. It will involve giving and taking on both sides. The resulting balance of give and take will be defined by Theresa May as either a good or a bad deal. Now, as a previous remainer, she is of course completely aware that any partial deal will never be as good as full membership except for the kind of partial membership that involves only the benefits and none of the obligations. That is club membership with no fees or rules to abide by. The likelihood of this coming across is understandably nil. Somewhere along the line compromises have to be made. A strong and stable leader will of course see to it that compromises are not one sided but actually a gain for all.  I once said in an earlier Tweet that good leadership leads out of minefields or if you will out of marshes and not into them. No mention here that the reason Britain is up the proverbial creek in a barbed wire canoe is just this lack of strength, stability and leadership. The referendum was a cheap political gamble that didn’t pay off and the question asked in the referendum is on a par with ”would you like something to eat?”  A ”no” answer leaving no one in doubt as to what is required, with a ”yes” answer begging a second question.

At this stage the country was in dire need of not only strong and stable but also sensible leadership. At this stage Theresa May abdicated not only as a contender to the title of being strong and stable but also as being a competent leader of the UK. That second question never came, only ”Brexit means Brexit” or, ”you eat what you get.” What are we getting? There is a long list of what we will NOT be getting, either partially (Soft Brexit) or completely (Hard Brexit) What in fact are we getting that we didn’t have before? Nothing that warrants the risk of the UK splitting up and England becoming poorer and less influential in a Europe that would gladly see the opposite.

There is a slight breeze and if the mist disperses we may avoid falling into that quicksand and we may even find our way out of the marshes.

I spoke to a an old friend of mine on the telephone the other day and she obviously felt that in some way she had to explain what was happening in the country I grew up in. I do not recall her exact words but somewhere along the line the reasoning was that English/British people were different. I am not too sure which category she was referring to but noted a possible lapse of logic should she have been referring to the latter. For arguments sake I shall assume she meant English. ”We are different from the rest!” she said almost apologetically. Hmm, not exactly rocket science but there is of course an undertone. OK English people are different. To begin with they speak correct English without any annoying foreign accents not to mention deplorable colonial spelling. The English are also different because, in contrast to many other Europeans, the man on the street only speaks one language, English. The few that have retained a smattering of French from their schooldays  easily make a Frenchman´s toes curl on opening their ”bouches.” There are probably a thousand and one differences between an Englishman and any other nationality on the planet. Rocket science? Hardly. The fact is this applies much else to any one nationality and in my experience there is an awareness of being different from ”the rest” wherever you go. Looking at it from another angle you might ask yourself, what does an Englishman have in common with other nationalities. Well, as I already pointed out the sense of being different is a common national character anywhere in the world and in my experience, and this might come as a surprise to the average inhabitant of Blighty, just like the English most people feel somewhat different to ”foreigners”.  Now if being different is the natural state of things amongst the peoples of the globe so why point it out? Welcome to the undertone. Different is politely vague with no finer point to it and goes down well as a euphemism in circles where words like ”better” or ”superior” would be considered impolite and owned by no one. Different, despite its vagueness requires little explanation and easily answers the question ”why?”  ”Why are English people different from Swedish people?” ”Because English people make better tea.” No harm in that and generally speaking quite true, in my opinion. Why do you think the English way of life is superior to the Swedish way of life?  Only a moron would answer, ”because we´re English and we make better tea.”

I read an interesting yet rather disquieting article the other day written by a number of research scientists arguing that ageing should be classified as an illness. The idea being that this would release more resources in the fight against one of the major causes of illness which, perhaps not surprisingly for most of us, is old age. Ok, I can understand the financial argument as well as the natural link between age and illness. Defining ageing as an illness however raises a number of questions. I am 70 years old and in those years have had my share of infections and aches and pains, though thankfully nothing serious. A health expert once told me, ”you are as healthy as you feel” meaning that health is as much a matter of the mind as of the body which is something worth remembering with regard to age and illness. Now these guys come and tell me, no you´re ill no matter how you feel or what other ailments you may or may not have. The mind boggles. When was I afflicted with this illness? Was it when I succumbed to nature by looking in the mirror and accepting that I am old or was it on my 65th birthday or the day after my last day at work? To me this is akin to telling a perfectly healthy 25 year old that he is dying which of course is true but not imminent. No with all due respect, in my book ageing is not an illness, I hope you get your funds though so that you can treat me when I get ill.

Many Twitter followers were treated to a film clip where a television commentator, a professor of politics I am to understand, was interrupted by his small children entering the room during a broadcast. These children do what children do and their dad did what any dad would do. I dare say not many parents have experienced this situation live on television but certainly in other venues and just as embarrassing. No wonder the clip went viral with many of us both laughing at and I am sure, after the broadcast, with the the man and his children, recognizing him as one of us. He is saved by a woman who extracts the children from the room, bravely attempting to remain unseen by the camera. The programme was being broadcasted from Singapore and I assumed that the kids had done a runner from nanny. During the day there were a number of tweets and retweets about this incident. Especially one caught my eye suggesting that thinking the woman was a nanny had a racial twist to it. Why imagine that? Could not the professor, a white male, be married to her;  it appears he is. True enough, I stand corrected, or do I?  Hours later, after running this through my head and looking for evidence to strengthen my assumption that she was the nanny, the following occurred to me. What if I had assumed that the woman is the man´s wife?  Wouldn´t that have had an anti feminist twist to it by assuming it is the mother who takes care of the kids whilst the father is at work?

As it is put so nicely in Sweden. Whichever way you turn, your posterior is still at the back which is a rough translation of, tails I win, heads you lose. Just for the record, I´m not bothered if she is his wife or the nanny, it just reminded me of the joys of parenthood.

During the last month or so I have been receiving telephone calls from people who claim to be working for Microsoft. The English they speak is heavily accented and often only just reaches the mark of being understood. On the bright side they are extremely polite and more to the point, very concerned about my digital welfare. I have been informed that my Windows computer is behaving erratically on the Internet and that their computer department has detected serious defects in it. Not wanting to waste these peoples time out of consideration for their albeit misplaced concern, I quickly inform them that my computer is a Mac.  ”Not to worry sir, we have a Mac department that can help you.”

I think a lot of people at this stage would begin to challenge the wisdom of placing their computer welfare into the hands of ”computer experts” who cannot distinguish between a Mac and a Windows computer. Undoubtedly there are people who would continue the conversation for a while longer but I am sure that most of us would, somewhere along the line, arrive at the conclusion that they were being lied to and that there was something fishy going on and then put the phone down before being ripped off.

To me there is a parallel with Brexit here. You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all all of the people all of the time.

Preventing them from putting the phone down is frightening.