I once came across a journalist called Jon Kelly. I made fun of him (just a little bit). He replied. He was, I think, not upset, but I suppose I felt a little bad about it.
So I decided to look him up again - and I am pleased that I did. Kelly is now working on BBC Stories and he is doing some really good stuff. Here are some examples.
- This is about a woman prisoner.
- This is about a woman who married two haemophiliacs - and was widowed twice, by the same infected blood scandal.
- This is about how hard employment is when you have dementia.
And there are more.
Each of the ones I have read is a proper article, interesting or affecting as the story demands. They also reflect well on Kelly: these are people currently facing, or at least remembering, some pretty hard times, and he treats their stories with care and respect. I recommend that you forget about politics for a few moments, read a couple of his articles and you'll be reminded why you pay your licence fee.
The BBC was wasting Kelly by getting him to write frivolous rubbish. But now he is doing what he should be doing. Well done to both of them.
Tuesday, 26 November 2019
Wednesday, 20 November 2019
Some unusual links
1. This is a surprisingly interesting and non-stupid article about being a psychic. We all have our blind spots and sometimes find it hard to remember that [insert category of people here] are people too, with all that that entails. (That's what I find most bizarre about the whole Brexit palaver: the human ability to invent wholly new categories of people based on their attitude to an international organisation and then to demonise them on that basis.) I suppose psychics and astrologers would tend to be the sorts of person I would write off, viewing them as just frauds who take money from the gullible. But they are people too. Well worth a read.
2. The Gardener by Rudyard Kipling. For Remembrance Day, a few days back.
3. Momentum knows about Bruce Wayne's company's tax arrangements. And Momentum is not happy about it. But ... hang on: isn't Bruce Wayne himself resident in Gotham City for tax purposes, so wouldn't he pay vast amounts of income tax? Or maybe he over-uses charitable deductions? The plot thickens! But if Wayne Enterprises did pay tax but nonetheless paid Wayne sufficient dividends to maintain his bat-lifestyle then would that be OK with Momentum? After all, Gotham City has pretty good tax receipts. I wonder if Momentum have thought through the property tax and VAT angles. And as for whether there is a double taxation treaty with Krypton ...
4. This is pretty amazing: real-life invisibility cloaks.
5. If you liked the Education Bicycle then you might like these, including the Well-being Umbrella, the Health Doughnut and the Vaccination Bicycle.
6. Good old Wittgenstein. Just a charmingly positive article about Ludwig.
7. You should support open borders because it will make rich countries more like South Africa! Reading this link is a lovely insight into how economists think and write among themselves.
8. Life on Mars? I remain to be persuaded.
2. The Gardener by Rudyard Kipling. For Remembrance Day, a few days back.
3. Momentum knows about Bruce Wayne's company's tax arrangements. And Momentum is not happy about it. But ... hang on: isn't Bruce Wayne himself resident in Gotham City for tax purposes, so wouldn't he pay vast amounts of income tax? Or maybe he over-uses charitable deductions? The plot thickens! But if Wayne Enterprises did pay tax but nonetheless paid Wayne sufficient dividends to maintain his bat-lifestyle then would that be OK with Momentum? After all, Gotham City has pretty good tax receipts. I wonder if Momentum have thought through the property tax and VAT angles. And as for whether there is a double taxation treaty with Krypton ...
4. This is pretty amazing: real-life invisibility cloaks.
5. If you liked the Education Bicycle then you might like these, including the Well-being Umbrella, the Health Doughnut and the Vaccination Bicycle.
6. Good old Wittgenstein. Just a charmingly positive article about Ludwig.
7. You should support open borders because it will make rich countries more like South Africa! Reading this link is a lovely insight into how economists think and write among themselves.
8. Life on Mars? I remain to be persuaded.
Friday, 8 November 2019
12 unrelated links
1. Here is the Jewish Chronicle, advising all non-Jews not to vote Labour because Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic. You have probably tired, as I have, of people saying "I know everything is extraordinary nowadays but this is REALLY extraordinary". So what do I say? This is now normal, I suppose. As you were - how many days are there left to save the NHS?
2. This link I am giving you for two reasons. First, as part of my ongoing project of giving you access to Zadie Smith's writings. Second, because it is well worth a read anyway. It's about an artist called Celia Paul, who seems to be, at the risk of sounding utterly bourgeois, really quite odd. Or, to put it differently, it's about one of Lucien Freud's muses and lovers. If you've ever wondered why on earth all those women put up with Freud then read this - and continue to wonder.
3. Do you remember all the fuss about atheism a few years back? And do you wonder what happened to it? New Atheism, social justice and hamartiology answers your questions in great style. (In genuinely unconnected news, it will not have passed you by that Kanye West has released an album called Jesus is King and that Kim Kardashian and her children got baptised in Armenia.)
4. The European Convention on Human Rights (which is the basis of the Human Rights Act in the UK) makes it illegal to abolish private schools. But of course it does! When, in 1950, the drafters of the ECHR surveyed the ruins of Europe, reviewed the atrocities of WWII and vowed "Never again!", they clearly had in mind the fundamental threat to human dignity - none greater! - that might result from forcing nice children to associate with the sorts of children who go to state schools. Indeed, if only Herr Hitler had been to the right kind of school, who knows what unpleasantness could have been avoided ... Seriously, whether you are on the left or the right, you should remember that human rights law is a well-intentioned but doddering and ridiculous force for wishy-washy conservatism - a kind of spectral Dominic Grieve. There are many worse things out there, but it is not an infallible source of wisdom.
5. Someone you might want to follow: Wolfgang Munchau and Eurointelligence. Interesting accounts of what is really going on in Europe. Not just Brexit, of course. How about this, for example: "If you read the German business press, you get an immediate sense of the country's dependence on CO2-emitting technologies. Three of the top stories in FAZ this morning were the final go-ahead for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, a new coal-fired power station going online, and a rise in SUV sales at Volkswagen. We sometimes feel as if entering a parallel universe time warp when reading German newspapers. The country is not even pretending to try and reach the Paris climate targets." If that makes you think that the British press does not really tell you much about Europe and you want to know more then Eurointelligence is worth a look.
6. Someone else you might want to follow: Niall Gooch. Likes murder mysteries, Ravilious, trains. Not a fan of Dr Beeching. Wrote this: "Have you ever actually seen an old maid hiking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning? I have." Also on Twitter, rightly admiring Uxbridge's Civic Centre, for example. Here's what he wrote about Brexit (he voted Remain ... and yet ...).
7. You know Conway's Game of Life? No? You should. This is a bit fiddly but otherwise fun for all the family.
8. You know that the European Court of Justice has held that individuals have the right to request that search engines remove certain web pages from their search results. Google de-lists a lot of BBC web pages as a result. This is the BBC's reaction: "As a contribution to public policy and debate, the BBC has decided to make clear to licence fee payers which pages have been impacted by publishing this list of links." Intrigued? See some here. Not an example of the Streisand effect. Or at least not yet.
9. Private firefighters in California.
10. The signature film of every major city. Well, a lot of US cities and some others.
11. Switzerland.
12. This is pretty cool.
2. This link I am giving you for two reasons. First, as part of my ongoing project of giving you access to Zadie Smith's writings. Second, because it is well worth a read anyway. It's about an artist called Celia Paul, who seems to be, at the risk of sounding utterly bourgeois, really quite odd. Or, to put it differently, it's about one of Lucien Freud's muses and lovers. If you've ever wondered why on earth all those women put up with Freud then read this - and continue to wonder.
3. Do you remember all the fuss about atheism a few years back? And do you wonder what happened to it? New Atheism, social justice and hamartiology answers your questions in great style. (In genuinely unconnected news, it will not have passed you by that Kanye West has released an album called Jesus is King and that Kim Kardashian and her children got baptised in Armenia.)
4. The European Convention on Human Rights (which is the basis of the Human Rights Act in the UK) makes it illegal to abolish private schools. But of course it does! When, in 1950, the drafters of the ECHR surveyed the ruins of Europe, reviewed the atrocities of WWII and vowed "Never again!", they clearly had in mind the fundamental threat to human dignity - none greater! - that might result from forcing nice children to associate with the sorts of children who go to state schools. Indeed, if only Herr Hitler had been to the right kind of school, who knows what unpleasantness could have been avoided ... Seriously, whether you are on the left or the right, you should remember that human rights law is a well-intentioned but doddering and ridiculous force for wishy-washy conservatism - a kind of spectral Dominic Grieve. There are many worse things out there, but it is not an infallible source of wisdom.
5. Someone you might want to follow: Wolfgang Munchau and Eurointelligence. Interesting accounts of what is really going on in Europe. Not just Brexit, of course. How about this, for example: "If you read the German business press, you get an immediate sense of the country's dependence on CO2-emitting technologies. Three of the top stories in FAZ this morning were the final go-ahead for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, a new coal-fired power station going online, and a rise in SUV sales at Volkswagen. We sometimes feel as if entering a parallel universe time warp when reading German newspapers. The country is not even pretending to try and reach the Paris climate targets." If that makes you think that the British press does not really tell you much about Europe and you want to know more then Eurointelligence is worth a look.
6. Someone else you might want to follow: Niall Gooch. Likes murder mysteries, Ravilious, trains. Not a fan of Dr Beeching. Wrote this: "Have you ever actually seen an old maid hiking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning? I have." Also on Twitter, rightly admiring Uxbridge's Civic Centre, for example. Here's what he wrote about Brexit (he voted Remain ... and yet ...).
7. You know Conway's Game of Life? No? You should. This is a bit fiddly but otherwise fun for all the family.
8. You know that the European Court of Justice has held that individuals have the right to request that search engines remove certain web pages from their search results. Google de-lists a lot of BBC web pages as a result. This is the BBC's reaction: "As a contribution to public policy and debate, the BBC has decided to make clear to licence fee payers which pages have been impacted by publishing this list of links." Intrigued? See some here. Not an example of the Streisand effect. Or at least not yet.
9. Private firefighters in California.
10. The signature film of every major city. Well, a lot of US cities and some others.
11. Switzerland.
12. This is pretty cool.
Saturday, 2 November 2019
Matthew Parris leaves the Conservative Party
Parris' piece saying that he is leaving the Conservative Party really is immensely silly. I have no joy in saying that. I am someone who has a great deal of respect for him - indeed, someone who has met and enjoyed talking to him. I am truly sorry to see such an unfortunate example of pure Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
In 2016 a Conservative Government held a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave it. Now, Parris believes that leaving the EU is "folly". He might be right: even Dominic Cummings has said that in some of the forking paths of the future, it would be better to have stayed. Lots of clever people agree.
But there are degrees of folly. There is the folly of forgetting your packed lunch at home and having to buy a sandwich instead, and there is the folly of failing to secure your bungee rope before jumping off a bridge. Parris obviously puts leaving the EU (even with Johnson's new and improved deal) in the latter category.
That means that he should have abandoned the Conservative Party when Cameron called the referendum. (Instead: see here.)
Look at it this way: what would you think about a party that called a referendum on something as reprehensible as the slaughter of the firstborn or as self-destructive as the abolition of all formal education? You would not wait a few years after the outcome of that referendum before deciding that that party was not one you wanted to support. Deliberately opening the door to a monster is an appalling thing to do, even if you are confident that you can shut the door before it gets in.
So why has Parris waited until now? He suggests that he is now "unwilling to support a leader who is a stranger to honesty or principle and who surfs a foolish populist wave for the sake of ambition alone, leading a governing party whose centre of gravity has shifted decisively away from the broadly centrist political force Conservatism once was." None of this makes any sense. Johnson is, I grant, a man whose personal life is perhaps more in line with Bill Clinton's than Richard Nixon's (I choose my examples advisedly), but whose time as Prime Minister has been spent doing nothing other than trying to leave the EU. If doing so is surfing a foolish populist wave and shifting away from being a broadly centrist force then I repeat: giving that option to the country in 2016 was every bit as bad - and probably worse. Charming old Cameron and diligent old May were surfers or extremists both.
On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that the folly of leaving the EU, if folly it be, is well within the range of legitimate decisions a country might make, that becoming a little more like Switzerland or Canada and a little less like Austria is nothing like the slaughter of the firstborn, and that the fact that a majority voted for Brexit provides at least some reason for thinking it a "centrist" position (for what that is worth), then nothing Johnson has done in office merits the bizarre invective Parris has chosen to deploy. The decision that has faced the British political classes since 2016 has been whether the fact of Brexit would be sufficiently disastrous to outweigh the moral and prudential imperative of respecting the result of a high-turnout referendum; the question has been whether to dispense with democracy in order to preserve Britain's half-in, half-out status in the EU. To any reasonable objective observer, even accepting that all the economic forecasts are true (a 3.5% reduction in GDP over 10 years, i.e. an annual rounding error), it is surely clear that there is nothing extreme or "populist" or indicative of "zealotry" or any of the other words Parris uses in deciding that it is better to live in a democracy in which a referendum is respected than to live in whatever alternative system of government the likes of Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer or the Liberal Democrats would wish for us. At the very least, is it not a reasonable view for Johnson to take? Is it not exactly the same view that May in all her sensible greyness took?
The emotional response to Brexit that has animated so many of our leaders and commentators is going to look very silly in a few years time. "I was right," they will say, looking at a large-ish holiday mobile phone bill and spotting the EU snubbing our diplomats in Davos. But they will say it quietly. And, as their friends and families watch the sun continuing to rise in the east and set in the west, and as new fads and crazes occupy their children, and as new outrages as yet undreamt of animate the opinion columns, and as the people of Britain continue to grumble their way through the minor annoyances that would dominate their lives regardless of the scope of the European customs union, they might wonder why it seemed so important to be right on this issue. Was all that Brexit fuss really happening at the same time as Hong Kong - and Yemen - and Syria - and Greta Thunberg - and Huawei - and Universal Credit and foodbanks and ...?, they will ask themselves in wonder. And I thought that Brexit was the issue worth marching about?
In 2016 a Conservative Government held a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave it. Now, Parris believes that leaving the EU is "folly". He might be right: even Dominic Cummings has said that in some of the forking paths of the future, it would be better to have stayed. Lots of clever people agree.
But there are degrees of folly. There is the folly of forgetting your packed lunch at home and having to buy a sandwich instead, and there is the folly of failing to secure your bungee rope before jumping off a bridge. Parris obviously puts leaving the EU (even with Johnson's new and improved deal) in the latter category.
That means that he should have abandoned the Conservative Party when Cameron called the referendum. (Instead: see here.)
Look at it this way: what would you think about a party that called a referendum on something as reprehensible as the slaughter of the firstborn or as self-destructive as the abolition of all formal education? You would not wait a few years after the outcome of that referendum before deciding that that party was not one you wanted to support. Deliberately opening the door to a monster is an appalling thing to do, even if you are confident that you can shut the door before it gets in.
So why has Parris waited until now? He suggests that he is now "unwilling to support a leader who is a stranger to honesty or principle and who surfs a foolish populist wave for the sake of ambition alone, leading a governing party whose centre of gravity has shifted decisively away from the broadly centrist political force Conservatism once was." None of this makes any sense. Johnson is, I grant, a man whose personal life is perhaps more in line with Bill Clinton's than Richard Nixon's (I choose my examples advisedly), but whose time as Prime Minister has been spent doing nothing other than trying to leave the EU. If doing so is surfing a foolish populist wave and shifting away from being a broadly centrist force then I repeat: giving that option to the country in 2016 was every bit as bad - and probably worse. Charming old Cameron and diligent old May were surfers or extremists both.
On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that the folly of leaving the EU, if folly it be, is well within the range of legitimate decisions a country might make, that becoming a little more like Switzerland or Canada and a little less like Austria is nothing like the slaughter of the firstborn, and that the fact that a majority voted for Brexit provides at least some reason for thinking it a "centrist" position (for what that is worth), then nothing Johnson has done in office merits the bizarre invective Parris has chosen to deploy. The decision that has faced the British political classes since 2016 has been whether the fact of Brexit would be sufficiently disastrous to outweigh the moral and prudential imperative of respecting the result of a high-turnout referendum; the question has been whether to dispense with democracy in order to preserve Britain's half-in, half-out status in the EU. To any reasonable objective observer, even accepting that all the economic forecasts are true (a 3.5% reduction in GDP over 10 years, i.e. an annual rounding error), it is surely clear that there is nothing extreme or "populist" or indicative of "zealotry" or any of the other words Parris uses in deciding that it is better to live in a democracy in which a referendum is respected than to live in whatever alternative system of government the likes of Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer or the Liberal Democrats would wish for us. At the very least, is it not a reasonable view for Johnson to take? Is it not exactly the same view that May in all her sensible greyness took?
The emotional response to Brexit that has animated so many of our leaders and commentators is going to look very silly in a few years time. "I was right," they will say, looking at a large-ish holiday mobile phone bill and spotting the EU snubbing our diplomats in Davos. But they will say it quietly. And, as their friends and families watch the sun continuing to rise in the east and set in the west, and as new fads and crazes occupy their children, and as new outrages as yet undreamt of animate the opinion columns, and as the people of Britain continue to grumble their way through the minor annoyances that would dominate their lives regardless of the scope of the European customs union, they might wonder why it seemed so important to be right on this issue. Was all that Brexit fuss really happening at the same time as Hong Kong - and Yemen - and Syria - and Greta Thunberg - and Huawei - and Universal Credit and foodbanks and ...?, they will ask themselves in wonder. And I thought that Brexit was the issue worth marching about?
Tuesday, 29 October 2019
On the American 'Deep State'
I am in no position to give my own view on whether the so-called 'Deep State' in the US is anything more (or less) than a rather glamorous name for the American equivalent of our own dear Establishment. But I can give you a clutch of articles from disparate sources, all better-informed than I, that makes for good reading.
First we have Matt Taibbi, the man who described Goldman Sachs as a giant vampire squid. It's pretty punchy. Then this from Robert Merry. "When the president canceled large war games with South Korea, the military held them anyway—only on a smaller scale and without fanfare. Diplomats negotiated an agreement before a NATO summit to foreclose any Trump action based on a different outlook": Yes, Minister played as tragedy rather than farce. And finally, this, an interview with Angelo Codevilla that ranges widely over all sorts of topics in a lively fandango. It has also introduced me to Branson, Missouri, which looks like a great place for a holiday.
First we have Matt Taibbi, the man who described Goldman Sachs as a giant vampire squid. It's pretty punchy. Then this from Robert Merry. "When the president canceled large war games with South Korea, the military held them anyway—only on a smaller scale and without fanfare. Diplomats negotiated an agreement before a NATO summit to foreclose any Trump action based on a different outlook": Yes, Minister played as tragedy rather than farce. And finally, this, an interview with Angelo Codevilla that ranges widely over all sorts of topics in a lively fandango. It has also introduced me to Branson, Missouri, which looks like a great place for a holiday.
Monday, 30 September 2019
The Supreme Court's ruling on prorogation
You can find the judgment here. It's fairly short and punchy so you should read it if you're at all interested. If you want some temperate and balanced comments from me then read on. Warning: there is nothing about the Establishment below, very little relevant to the prospects for Brexit and something about James I.
Tuesday, 10 September 2019
Brexit stuff - UPDATED
Consider yourself warned by the headline. But there is something for everyone here, I think, whatever your views on the subject.
1. Ivan Rogers on no-deal Brexit. A lot of sense here. One minor caveat from Bruno Maçães: "Rogers like many is wrong,though, that the backstop is something the UK not the EU wanted. And he admits this by saying EU will not scrap backstop. Why would you insist on having what you don’t want?" Interesting stuff. One big point: no deal is not the end. And what is the end? Revocation is not the end. A second referendum is not the end (what about a third?).
2. Why hasn't Brexit happened yet? asks Christopher Caldwell. Again, good stuff, although, after you have read Rogers himself, you may feel that Caldwell is too harsh on Rogers.
3. Historical prorogations.
4. The one iron-clad law of Brexit discussion prevails again. Jonathan Freedland, writing in the New York Review of Books, starts his piece as follows: "An easy way to measure how much and how swiftly Britain has changed in the age of Brexit is to compare the Britain of 2019 with the image the country projected of itself [in the past]. The last time that pre-Brexit Britain showed itself to the world, the last time it thought hard about its identity, even its own meaning as a country, was ..." I pause here to see whether you can finish Freedland's sentence. When was it, this solemn occasion on which Britain last thought hard about its identity? At the 2017 General Election? Maybe at some point during the 2016 referendum - or in the aftermath of its surprising result? No, of course not. The last time that the 60-something million citizens of this country sat down and truly considered our own meaning as a country was - yes, you guessed it! - "... on a warm summer’s evening in 2012 when, under the guiding hand of the movie director Danny Boyle, London staged the opening ceremony of that year’s Olympic Games." (The rest of the article writes itself and can be safely ignored.) Mr Boyle's achievement in channelling the thoughts and desires of an entire nation into one evening of made-for-TV entertainment is truly remarkable. Unfortunately he is not a politician and so not available for helping us out of our current mess. Perhaps instead we could turn to the politician who presided over the amazingness that was London 2012 - the man who was the triumphant Mayor of that at-ease-with-itself city now sadly one with Nineveh and Tyre. As I recall, that man, whoever he was, was "a huge asset to the Games, as a jovial Master of Ceremonies, the right mayor for the right place and time. He lifted the mood before Team GB golds rolled in, and became a totem for many of the British characteristics Danny Boyle sought to showcase in the opening ceremony, the mildly deranged humor, the appearance of chaos that overlies purpose...". If only that human representation of the London 2012 opening ceremony were available to serve as Prime Minister now! How unfortunate that we are stuck with Boris Johnson, the very antithesis of everything that we loved in 2012.
5. UPDATE. Here's a pleasant coincidence. This is the LRB, with an interesting article about the intellectual background to the Single Market (an international free-trade zone horribly insulated from the passions of the populace) and how awful it is. Meanwhile, here is the Economist, describing the Single Market (an international free-trade zone wonderfully insulated from the passions of the populace) and how it has failed to go far enough. The two articles largely agree about the facts. And here (with a bit from Alan Walters!) is how this all plays into Brexit: "What happened was single market in services never happened in part because it would favor UK and the largest part of the British economy was never fully integrated into the EU". It is perhaps fair to say that the UK is to services what Germany is to manufacturing, and would have dominated the service sector of Europe in the same way that Germany dominates manufacturing had it been allowed to do so. I doubt it is as simple as saying that the Brexiteers' mouths could have been stuffed with gold, but perhaps enough mouths could have been stuffed.
1. Ivan Rogers on no-deal Brexit. A lot of sense here. One minor caveat from Bruno Maçães: "Rogers like many is wrong,though, that the backstop is something the UK not the EU wanted. And he admits this by saying EU will not scrap backstop. Why would you insist on having what you don’t want?" Interesting stuff. One big point: no deal is not the end. And what is the end? Revocation is not the end. A second referendum is not the end (what about a third?).
2. Why hasn't Brexit happened yet? asks Christopher Caldwell. Again, good stuff, although, after you have read Rogers himself, you may feel that Caldwell is too harsh on Rogers.
3. Historical prorogations.
4. The one iron-clad law of Brexit discussion prevails again. Jonathan Freedland, writing in the New York Review of Books, starts his piece as follows: "An easy way to measure how much and how swiftly Britain has changed in the age of Brexit is to compare the Britain of 2019 with the image the country projected of itself [in the past]. The last time that pre-Brexit Britain showed itself to the world, the last time it thought hard about its identity, even its own meaning as a country, was ..." I pause here to see whether you can finish Freedland's sentence. When was it, this solemn occasion on which Britain last thought hard about its identity? At the 2017 General Election? Maybe at some point during the 2016 referendum - or in the aftermath of its surprising result? No, of course not. The last time that the 60-something million citizens of this country sat down and truly considered our own meaning as a country was - yes, you guessed it! - "... on a warm summer’s evening in 2012 when, under the guiding hand of the movie director Danny Boyle, London staged the opening ceremony of that year’s Olympic Games." (The rest of the article writes itself and can be safely ignored.) Mr Boyle's achievement in channelling the thoughts and desires of an entire nation into one evening of made-for-TV entertainment is truly remarkable. Unfortunately he is not a politician and so not available for helping us out of our current mess. Perhaps instead we could turn to the politician who presided over the amazingness that was London 2012 - the man who was the triumphant Mayor of that at-ease-with-itself city now sadly one with Nineveh and Tyre. As I recall, that man, whoever he was, was "a huge asset to the Games, as a jovial Master of Ceremonies, the right mayor for the right place and time. He lifted the mood before Team GB golds rolled in, and became a totem for many of the British characteristics Danny Boyle sought to showcase in the opening ceremony, the mildly deranged humor, the appearance of chaos that overlies purpose...". If only that human representation of the London 2012 opening ceremony were available to serve as Prime Minister now! How unfortunate that we are stuck with Boris Johnson, the very antithesis of everything that we loved in 2012.
5. UPDATE. Here's a pleasant coincidence. This is the LRB, with an interesting article about the intellectual background to the Single Market (an international free-trade zone horribly insulated from the passions of the populace) and how awful it is. Meanwhile, here is the Economist, describing the Single Market (an international free-trade zone wonderfully insulated from the passions of the populace) and how it has failed to go far enough. The two articles largely agree about the facts. And here (with a bit from Alan Walters!) is how this all plays into Brexit: "What happened was single market in services never happened in part because it would favor UK and the largest part of the British economy was never fully integrated into the EU". It is perhaps fair to say that the UK is to services what Germany is to manufacturing, and would have dominated the service sector of Europe in the same way that Germany dominates manufacturing had it been allowed to do so. I doubt it is as simple as saying that the Brexiteers' mouths could have been stuffed with gold, but perhaps enough mouths could have been stuffed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)