Or, more likely, the Battle of Britain.
I said (27 July) that Brexit wasn't like Dunkirk, though potentially a colossal economic disaster, to paraphrase Churchill.
But I have now seen the film (it's great, go watch it if you haven't). And, co-incidentally a few days earlier, a film set in France in 1940 as the Germans rolled into Paris. And it struck me that, yes, even for those of us too young to have lived through WWII, there are attitudes and beliefs which are deeply ingrained in our societies and which are relevant, at least.
In the film about German occupied France there were scenes of refugees, in that case walking many miles from Paris to try to find safety having left everything behind. For those old enough to have experienced it - and their children who have heard them talk about it - the scenes of migrants tramping through Europe in recent times must have been like an echo of a nightmare they thought would never return.
I entirely understand the view of the Germans and French that led to the founding of the Common Market and then EU, that they must ensure politically that those events can never recur. It is in the deepest part of their values.
The British experience was different. Britain stood alone and came so close to losing its proud independence. Without the British standing firm - and crucially engaging the Americans without whom Europe would not be free - the modern Europe would not exist. Or, if it did, it would have been created much later in a very different way.
We share much of the same value set with the Germans, French and other continental Europeans. But most of us have never shared their prescription for the means to achieve it, i.e. a European superstate.
I find it hard to accept my own conclusion that these historic events have anything to do with forming our views of how to ensure a safe and prosperous future for us all in the continent of Europe. Surely it's about - well, what? A strong trading block, immigration, loss of sovereignty, freedom of movement and so on?
But feelings and emotions are relevant as well. The continental Europeans have decided long ago the way ahead is to merge. We survived alone and then played a key role in enabling them to have the luxury of taking those decisions.
We have never ploughed the same furrow. We don't have the same shared experience. I can't help feeling, whether I like it or not, that's a key part of why we feel we don't belong in the federal European state. Even though it's ancient history.
We are better getting out of their way and letting them form the federal state that we never voted for and, I believe, a majority of Brits instinctively don't want to belong to.
In 1975 we were sold a "common market". But even in 2016 the Remain campaign was fought on the basis of the status quo. Remainers are wont to say that the Leave option was vague and unspecified and people didn't know what they were voting for. A valid point, but what about the silence of the Remain campaign on the EU's direction of travel? I guess we all knew this was dissembling on a grand scale. The Leave campaign offered nothing concrete beyond the "bring back control" mantra and the obviously contentious, even at the time, "£350M a week for the NHS". But the Remain campaign, in its deliberate silence about the future of the EU, was equally morally bankrupt. There was, deliberately, no discussion at all about what the future "Europe" might look like, what influence we would have over it, what potential developments we could veto or have to accept. I contend that the choices were both unspecified, admittedly perhaps unknowable. No wonder many people voted on feeling and instinct.
It is often suggested that Leavers (I wasn't one) voted that way because they didn't like immigration or even because they were racist (a totally out of order accusation). And we hear the refrain "people didn't vote to make themselves poorer". I believe many people voted Leave because they don't feel they belong in what Europe wants to become. They feel separate.
They are allowed to feel that. And it means they won't easily change their minds. It's why we haven't seen much "buyer's remorse" from leave voters. And aren't likely to either.
Wednesday, 4 October 2017
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
Worst Everton team in over a decade
Everyone can see Everton are struggling but I saw it for myself, first hand last week in the Europa League game at Goodison against Apollon Limassol, which ended in a shambolic 2-2 draw. One might say "hardly the mighty Apollon Limassol, of Cyprus". Things got worse with the 0-1 home defeat to Burnley on Sunday and Everton have gone into the international break badly needing to regroup.
I was suspicious of the almost unbounded optimism during the transfer window. £142M was splurged with the biggest buys being Sigurdsson (£44M), Pickford (£26M), Keane (£26M) and Klassen (£24M). In addition Vlasic came for (£10M), Henry Onyekuru (who he? bought for £7M from Belgian first division side KAS Eupen and loaned straight out to Anderlecht for the season) and Sandro Ramirez came from Malaga for £5M.
I was pleased with the acquisition of Pickford and Keane - good players in needed positions. Pickford has done well, though alarmingly he patted down shots and crosses on multiple occasions against Burnley before gathering the ball. I expect Keane will be a good player for the club, but he doesn't look like the Burnley player who won two England caps last season. After a sound start, he's not looking quick or confident. He badly needs the injured Jagielka alongside rather than the accident prone Williams, who clearly reached his peak for Wales at the Euros 15 months ago and seems to be in steep decline, aged 33.
But the other new players aren't looking good. 7 Premier League games and a few cup ties against modest opposition is early days - though nearly 20% through the Premier League season. However, Sigurdsson looks one paced. I asked whether he would prove to be a good swap for Barkley (my post of 19 July) when it looked like one would arrive and the other depart. The fact that most of Sigurdsson's assists come from set plays worried me and I noted that there were 71 players who created more open play chances than Sigurdsson in the Premier League last season, including Kevin Mirallas and Ross Barkley of Everton. Indeed, Ross Barkley created 54 to Sigurdsson's 25. Adam Bate's comment on Sky Sports (he said "buyer beware") worried me. I'm even more worried now.
In common with many, I thought the club couldn't go wrong with Sandro Ramirez - a Barca academy graduate who scored 14 goals for Malaga in 30 La Liga appearances last season. Even if it didn't work out, they wouldn't lose money, a no-lose deal if ever we saw one. But Ramirez (as an aside why do the Premier League allow players to put what name they want on their shirts? Sandro isn't either of his family names) looks ever more like a startled rabbit and seems to have no idea where the net is. The answer is the club can lose if it goes into a tail spin because the squad is so weak. I'd already be planning to offload Ramirez in January.
Of course, it's not Ramirez's fault that Everton didn't replace Lukaku. He was only ever bought as a squad player/no 2 striker. Had Everton kept hold of Lukaku, which was never likely, the situation would be very different I'm sure. And there has been much emphasis on the gross spend of £142M when the net spend was "only" £46M and would have been fairly small if, as expected, Barkley had been sold before pulling out of a move to Chelsea and then getting injured. The squad needed a much bigger net spend, especially in view of the age profile of the squad with Jagielka, Baines, Williams, Rooney and Lennon all the wrong side of 30, the loss of Lukaku and the seemingly planned loss of Barkley, Koeman saying the player would be sold as he was within 12 months of the end of his contract.
Gary Neville, speaking on Sky, has clearly posited the problem for teams with too many players over 30: they play too deep. Forwards don't run in behind the defenders any more and prefer to drop off and defenders drop ever deeper, Williams being a case in point, ending up nearly treading on his own goalkeeper's toes when Burnley scored their excellent goal on Sunday.
Nevertheless, the failure to buy a proven striker is hugely culpable given the lack of surprise in Lukaku's departure. During the feelgood period when Everton, unusually, got the bulk of their business done early, many thought Rooney provided back up in case a replacement for Lukaku wasn't secured, but I was sceptical (see The Homecoming Prince, 12 July). I wondered if he still had the legs. He has, but not the speed of thought. Moreover, I wonder why Koeman can't get the team to play more aggressively and go forward more. Could it be that the players are looking to Rooney for their lead? He likes to drop off and be involved in the play, often slowing it down.
That tendency of Rooney's has exacerbated the other problem Everton have. The players they have acquired are too similar. There is no balance and variety in the squad. Many have noted that they have signed three "number 10s" in Rooney, Sigurdsson and Klassen. So there is no striker and no width. Which is further aggravated by Koeman having fallen out big time with Mirallas, who has had hardly any game time and is, I assume, heading for the exit in January.
Mirallas is missed because there is no zip in the team, no-one who can speed the game up, in particular by going on a run and drawing players in to them. All the players Everton have signed prefer to pass and move. Or maybe just pass. Sideways or back. Especially Schneiderlin. But I've got another bee in my bonnet about him, besides negativity. I've always said (partly from my own playing experience) that a good big fella will beat an equally talented little fella most of the time. But Schneiderlin strikes me as being one of those footballers who, while blessed with a perfect physique, play as if they are frightened of heading the ball. I hate to see him marking a danger man at corners and free kicks.
Barkley, of course, is different. Even without Lukaku he would bring a different dimension to the current team. Jamie Redknapp, writing in today's Daily Mail, notes:
"...they are lacking a creative spark. I do not see players in this Everton team with pace who are prepared to take on defenders and go past people. They desperately miss Ross Barkley. He creates so many chances and when he is fit I would have him in the team ahead of Sigurdsson."
I've been saying the same. But it seems to be assumed Barkley is still likely to leave, on a free transfer by next summer if a deal can't be found in January, which I expect it won't be. I think Barkley turned down Chelsea because he had no guarantees about his role there - the manager didn't even speak to him directly - and is now pinning his hopes on Spurs. Indeed, perhaps Spurs suggested to Barkley's agent that he should wait. Maybe they will pay him a bit more if they get him for nothing in the summer. It wouldn't surprise me if a deal had been pre-agreed. I still think he'd be daft to go there as I can't see him displacing Eriksen or Alli and I can't imagine Pochettino playing both of them and Barkley except against the weaker teams at home. So he'd only get splinters in his arse sitting on the bench most weeks.
The really worrying thing for me is that this Everton team, admittedly drained of confidence, looks weaker than any in the past decade. Indeed, since Wayne Rooney was last there, as a teenager. Maybe even the weakest since the Walter Smith dog days, but more reasonably since 2003-04 when, in Moyes's 2nd full season, Everton finished 17th. Scary.
If you doubt this, answer me these questions: On what we've seen so far, would you prefer:
So, yes, Everton need a striker. But I suspect that alone might not be enough to stop me being nostalgic for players I hadn't expected to miss so badly after the progress of recent years. It looks to me like a huge snake that they've managed to slide down.
Still, with any luck, Colleen will keep Wayne at home this international break to avoid the ignominy of him being arrested. After all, I don't know how she lives with the shame - of him driving a VW Beetle!
*The Everton fans song for Arteta was to the tune of Scott Joplin's The Entertainer:
Follow, follow, follow
Everton's the team to follow
Cos there's nobody better than Mikel Arteta
He's the best little Spaniard we know
I also liked the Fellaini song they sang, to the tune of Can't Take My Eyes Off You, though this was rather more ribald.
I was suspicious of the almost unbounded optimism during the transfer window. £142M was splurged with the biggest buys being Sigurdsson (£44M), Pickford (£26M), Keane (£26M) and Klassen (£24M). In addition Vlasic came for (£10M), Henry Onyekuru (who he? bought for £7M from Belgian first division side KAS Eupen and loaned straight out to Anderlecht for the season) and Sandro Ramirez came from Malaga for £5M.
I was pleased with the acquisition of Pickford and Keane - good players in needed positions. Pickford has done well, though alarmingly he patted down shots and crosses on multiple occasions against Burnley before gathering the ball. I expect Keane will be a good player for the club, but he doesn't look like the Burnley player who won two England caps last season. After a sound start, he's not looking quick or confident. He badly needs the injured Jagielka alongside rather than the accident prone Williams, who clearly reached his peak for Wales at the Euros 15 months ago and seems to be in steep decline, aged 33.
But the other new players aren't looking good. 7 Premier League games and a few cup ties against modest opposition is early days - though nearly 20% through the Premier League season. However, Sigurdsson looks one paced. I asked whether he would prove to be a good swap for Barkley (my post of 19 July) when it looked like one would arrive and the other depart. The fact that most of Sigurdsson's assists come from set plays worried me and I noted that there were 71 players who created more open play chances than Sigurdsson in the Premier League last season, including Kevin Mirallas and Ross Barkley of Everton. Indeed, Ross Barkley created 54 to Sigurdsson's 25. Adam Bate's comment on Sky Sports (he said "buyer beware") worried me. I'm even more worried now.
In common with many, I thought the club couldn't go wrong with Sandro Ramirez - a Barca academy graduate who scored 14 goals for Malaga in 30 La Liga appearances last season. Even if it didn't work out, they wouldn't lose money, a no-lose deal if ever we saw one. But Ramirez (as an aside why do the Premier League allow players to put what name they want on their shirts? Sandro isn't either of his family names) looks ever more like a startled rabbit and seems to have no idea where the net is. The answer is the club can lose if it goes into a tail spin because the squad is so weak. I'd already be planning to offload Ramirez in January.
Of course, it's not Ramirez's fault that Everton didn't replace Lukaku. He was only ever bought as a squad player/no 2 striker. Had Everton kept hold of Lukaku, which was never likely, the situation would be very different I'm sure. And there has been much emphasis on the gross spend of £142M when the net spend was "only" £46M and would have been fairly small if, as expected, Barkley had been sold before pulling out of a move to Chelsea and then getting injured. The squad needed a much bigger net spend, especially in view of the age profile of the squad with Jagielka, Baines, Williams, Rooney and Lennon all the wrong side of 30, the loss of Lukaku and the seemingly planned loss of Barkley, Koeman saying the player would be sold as he was within 12 months of the end of his contract.
Gary Neville, speaking on Sky, has clearly posited the problem for teams with too many players over 30: they play too deep. Forwards don't run in behind the defenders any more and prefer to drop off and defenders drop ever deeper, Williams being a case in point, ending up nearly treading on his own goalkeeper's toes when Burnley scored their excellent goal on Sunday.
Nevertheless, the failure to buy a proven striker is hugely culpable given the lack of surprise in Lukaku's departure. During the feelgood period when Everton, unusually, got the bulk of their business done early, many thought Rooney provided back up in case a replacement for Lukaku wasn't secured, but I was sceptical (see The Homecoming Prince, 12 July). I wondered if he still had the legs. He has, but not the speed of thought. Moreover, I wonder why Koeman can't get the team to play more aggressively and go forward more. Could it be that the players are looking to Rooney for their lead? He likes to drop off and be involved in the play, often slowing it down.
That tendency of Rooney's has exacerbated the other problem Everton have. The players they have acquired are too similar. There is no balance and variety in the squad. Many have noted that they have signed three "number 10s" in Rooney, Sigurdsson and Klassen. So there is no striker and no width. Which is further aggravated by Koeman having fallen out big time with Mirallas, who has had hardly any game time and is, I assume, heading for the exit in January.
Mirallas is missed because there is no zip in the team, no-one who can speed the game up, in particular by going on a run and drawing players in to them. All the players Everton have signed prefer to pass and move. Or maybe just pass. Sideways or back. Especially Schneiderlin. But I've got another bee in my bonnet about him, besides negativity. I've always said (partly from my own playing experience) that a good big fella will beat an equally talented little fella most of the time. But Schneiderlin strikes me as being one of those footballers who, while blessed with a perfect physique, play as if they are frightened of heading the ball. I hate to see him marking a danger man at corners and free kicks.
Barkley, of course, is different. Even without Lukaku he would bring a different dimension to the current team. Jamie Redknapp, writing in today's Daily Mail, notes:
"...they are lacking a creative spark. I do not see players in this Everton team with pace who are prepared to take on defenders and go past people. They desperately miss Ross Barkley. He creates so many chances and when he is fit I would have him in the team ahead of Sigurdsson."
I've been saying the same. But it seems to be assumed Barkley is still likely to leave, on a free transfer by next summer if a deal can't be found in January, which I expect it won't be. I think Barkley turned down Chelsea because he had no guarantees about his role there - the manager didn't even speak to him directly - and is now pinning his hopes on Spurs. Indeed, perhaps Spurs suggested to Barkley's agent that he should wait. Maybe they will pay him a bit more if they get him for nothing in the summer. It wouldn't surprise me if a deal had been pre-agreed. I still think he'd be daft to go there as I can't see him displacing Eriksen or Alli and I can't imagine Pochettino playing both of them and Barkley except against the weaker teams at home. So he'd only get splinters in his arse sitting on the bench most weeks.
The really worrying thing for me is that this Everton team, admittedly drained of confidence, looks weaker than any in the past decade. Indeed, since Wayne Rooney was last there, as a teenager. Maybe even the weakest since the Walter Smith dog days, but more reasonably since 2003-04 when, in Moyes's 2nd full season, Everton finished 17th. Scary.
If you doubt this, answer me these questions: On what we've seen so far, would you prefer:
- Klassen to Osman or Pienaar? Osman was technically very proficient and had a goal in him. Pienaar had that zip from a standing start and willingness to drive at defenders
- the current centre backs to Weir and Stubbs? Or Joe Yobo?
- Sandro Ramirez to Andy Johnson? (I agree Johnson cost more but he was the player we had. And of course there was Yakubu.....)
So, yes, Everton need a striker. But I suspect that alone might not be enough to stop me being nostalgic for players I hadn't expected to miss so badly after the progress of recent years. It looks to me like a huge snake that they've managed to slide down.
Still, with any luck, Colleen will keep Wayne at home this international break to avoid the ignominy of him being arrested. After all, I don't know how she lives with the shame - of him driving a VW Beetle!
*The Everton fans song for Arteta was to the tune of Scott Joplin's The Entertainer:
Follow, follow, follow
Everton's the team to follow
Cos there's nobody better than Mikel Arteta
He's the best little Spaniard we know
I also liked the Fellaini song they sang, to the tune of Can't Take My Eyes Off You, though this was rather more ribald.
Saturday, 30 September 2017
Best Musicians I've seen - 1
A while ago (22 June) I commented on some of the best musicians, technically, that I'd seen playing as backing bands. Which made me think about the best individual musicians I've seen. This serious question needed proper consideration but I've picked my first - and one of perhaps just two slots in a personal opinion fantasy supergroup that I am unequivocal about.
The best drummer I've ever seen play is Jon Hiseman.
Hiseman followed Ginger Baker in Graham Bond's band before playing with John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and then forming his own band, Colosseum, the "critically acclaimed, seminal jazz/prog rock band" (according to Wikipedia) that I saw play in Manchester on 18 March 1971. That isn't some ridiculously detailed recollection, or a ticket stub (they just stamped your hand at the Uni) but I know it because Colosseum were recording what became the double album (I'm talking vinyl of course) Colosseum Live and recordings from Manchester and Brighton were used for the album, so it's a matter of record (sorry, poor pun).
I've been hugely attached to the live version of Rope Ladder To The Moon, which I rarely go more than a few weeks without listening to, ever since. It's one of the few live recordings that I listen to time after time (another list coming, I fear).
I've certainly seen many drummers who hit the skins harder - John Bonham comes to mind - but, using an economical backlift, Hiseman has fantastic rhythm, speed and fluency.
His Wikipedia page gave me a link to a website called Drummerworld, which lists their top 500 ever drummers. The site claims to be the World's No.1 Website for drummers and percussionists "in terms of numbers, visitors, content and ranking" and features drummers from all genres in the history of jazz and rock. I looked up Hiseman's page* and it says:
An intelligent highly skillful drummer whose technical ability stuns as much as it impresses. He used light sticks, the military grip on the left hand and sat high and erect. As with Mitch (Mitchell, who played with Hendrix), the military grip did not impact on his tom playing as he adjusted with ease to matched grip. He was physically powerful but had the advantage of playing the best part of his rock career with miking and as such did not have to physically match the volume of the electric instruments. Of the drummers under analysis here, Jon is technically the best. He has the full range of rudiments, is balanced quadrapedal, precise, very fast, and explosive when required. His emphasis is on the hi-hat/snare/bass/ride cymbal but with effortless excursions onto the toms and 2nd bass drum insertions. It is more be-bop style with less emphasis on the tom patterns, and more on the ride cymbals then Baker. He unhesitatingly used brushes when appropriate. As a soloist he was devastating: playing at fearsome tempos over the full kit..... creating "a bubbling thickness of sound and layers of patterns". Around this era the most comparable drummer, in technical terms and speed, was Billy Cobham (a famous jazz-fusion drummer who played with Miles Davis and John McLaughlin).
Most of the pages on individual drummers just give their playing CV, without commenting on their playing style or prowess: all of which left me feeling insufferably smug about my choice. I never saw Ginger Baker play, mind.
I find it interesting that, while I hardly ever listen to jazz, I'm hugely fond of some jazz-influenced prog rock bands, in particular Soft Machine, King Crimson and the aforementioned Colosseum. Like several other well known rock drummers, Hiseman and Baker were jazz players in their early careers, though they both found it too restrictive and moved on.
If you want to hear (and see) an example of Hiseman's playing follow the link below** to a 1994 live video of their epic piece, first recorded in 1969, Valentyne Suite, for me one of the most perfect pieces of music in the popular idiom and having every bit as much artistic merit as my favourite classical pieces. It's over 20 minutes long, but even the first 90 seconds provides a wonderful example of his precise, fluent style.
*http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Jon_Hiseman.html
**http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/jonhisemanvalentyne.html
The best drummer I've ever seen play is Jon Hiseman.
Hiseman followed Ginger Baker in Graham Bond's band before playing with John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and then forming his own band, Colosseum, the "critically acclaimed, seminal jazz/prog rock band" (according to Wikipedia) that I saw play in Manchester on 18 March 1971. That isn't some ridiculously detailed recollection, or a ticket stub (they just stamped your hand at the Uni) but I know it because Colosseum were recording what became the double album (I'm talking vinyl of course) Colosseum Live and recordings from Manchester and Brighton were used for the album, so it's a matter of record (sorry, poor pun).
I've been hugely attached to the live version of Rope Ladder To The Moon, which I rarely go more than a few weeks without listening to, ever since. It's one of the few live recordings that I listen to time after time (another list coming, I fear).
I've certainly seen many drummers who hit the skins harder - John Bonham comes to mind - but, using an economical backlift, Hiseman has fantastic rhythm, speed and fluency.
His Wikipedia page gave me a link to a website called Drummerworld, which lists their top 500 ever drummers. The site claims to be the World's No.1 Website for drummers and percussionists "in terms of numbers, visitors, content and ranking" and features drummers from all genres in the history of jazz and rock. I looked up Hiseman's page* and it says:
An intelligent highly skillful drummer whose technical ability stuns as much as it impresses. He used light sticks, the military grip on the left hand and sat high and erect. As with Mitch (Mitchell, who played with Hendrix), the military grip did not impact on his tom playing as he adjusted with ease to matched grip. He was physically powerful but had the advantage of playing the best part of his rock career with miking and as such did not have to physically match the volume of the electric instruments. Of the drummers under analysis here, Jon is technically the best. He has the full range of rudiments, is balanced quadrapedal, precise, very fast, and explosive when required. His emphasis is on the hi-hat/snare/bass/ride cymbal but with effortless excursions onto the toms and 2nd bass drum insertions. It is more be-bop style with less emphasis on the tom patterns, and more on the ride cymbals then Baker. He unhesitatingly used brushes when appropriate. As a soloist he was devastating: playing at fearsome tempos over the full kit..... creating "a bubbling thickness of sound and layers of patterns". Around this era the most comparable drummer, in technical terms and speed, was Billy Cobham (a famous jazz-fusion drummer who played with Miles Davis and John McLaughlin).
Most of the pages on individual drummers just give their playing CV, without commenting on their playing style or prowess: all of which left me feeling insufferably smug about my choice. I never saw Ginger Baker play, mind.
I find it interesting that, while I hardly ever listen to jazz, I'm hugely fond of some jazz-influenced prog rock bands, in particular Soft Machine, King Crimson and the aforementioned Colosseum. Like several other well known rock drummers, Hiseman and Baker were jazz players in their early careers, though they both found it too restrictive and moved on.
If you want to hear (and see) an example of Hiseman's playing follow the link below** to a 1994 live video of their epic piece, first recorded in 1969, Valentyne Suite, for me one of the most perfect pieces of music in the popular idiom and having every bit as much artistic merit as my favourite classical pieces. It's over 20 minutes long, but even the first 90 seconds provides a wonderful example of his precise, fluent style.
*http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Jon_Hiseman.html
**http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/jonhisemanvalentyne.html
Wednesday, 27 September 2017
Rene still says "non"
So Rene* (well, Donald Tusk actually) visited Downing Street to say - as I predicted - not enough detail yet and not enough progress to broaden the negotiations to include trade. The number of columnists saying that we may have to walk away is steadily increasing.
Meanwhile Keir Starmer and Labour are still also trying to have their cake and eat it. No, Labour does not want to join the EEA, which would involve an official change in the Brexit mandate. Yes, Labour wants the UK to adopt its own immigration regime to protect workers. This version of Brexit will not be on offer by the EU, says a fascinating website I have found, called EuroIntelligence. It's written by Wolfgang Munchau, who writes the European economic column in the FT; Susanne Mundschenk, who studied and was a research fellow in Bonn, was a visiting scholar at the European Institute of the LSE and worked previously at the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe in Paris and Miguel Carrión Álvarez, who writes on macroeconomics, financial instability and EU policy and has a background in financial mathematics, hedge funds and risk analysis at a Eurozone bank. Their article** which derides Labour's policy also opines that the options available to the UK are much narrower than most Brits appear to realise. It describes any transition period - which inevitably must be within full EU rules, so "soft" followed by what must inevitably be a "relatively hard" actual Brexit - as "Brexit postponed", though irreversible by that point.
EuroIntelligence is written from a pro-European perspective and focusses on the Eurozone in particular. There are some fascinating pieces posted recently - sadly, I could read it for hours - on the future of the Eurozone, including the interesting differences of opinion about the way forward between the Germans and French (I've been meaning to write a post on French economics and President Macron's interesting free market initiatives for some time). They also picked up on the report in today's Telegraph that key elements of Theresa May's Florence speech, in particular the phrases relating to Britain’s readiness to honour commitments made during EU membership and the pledge that nobody should pay additional sums as a result of the UK’s decision to leave, had been pre-agreed between UK and EU officials. In effect she took "dictation" from them, says Peter Foster***. Wow - and it still wasn't detailed enough for them. I'm sure they'll want us to be far more submissive before making any movement. What's the equivalent of the Maggie era slogan "Up Yours, Delors?"
* See Don't Walk Away, Renee 17 September. And yes, it is all rather like the 'Allo 'Allo! sitcom at times, isn't it?
**Brexit is a binary choice between EEA or third country status Eurointelligence, 26 Sept 2017
***Theresa May 'took dictation' from EU when she agreed to pay Brexit bill The Telegraph 27 Sept 2017
Meanwhile Keir Starmer and Labour are still also trying to have their cake and eat it. No, Labour does not want to join the EEA, which would involve an official change in the Brexit mandate. Yes, Labour wants the UK to adopt its own immigration regime to protect workers. This version of Brexit will not be on offer by the EU, says a fascinating website I have found, called EuroIntelligence. It's written by Wolfgang Munchau, who writes the European economic column in the FT; Susanne Mundschenk, who studied and was a research fellow in Bonn, was a visiting scholar at the European Institute of the LSE and worked previously at the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe in Paris and Miguel Carrión Álvarez, who writes on macroeconomics, financial instability and EU policy and has a background in financial mathematics, hedge funds and risk analysis at a Eurozone bank. Their article** which derides Labour's policy also opines that the options available to the UK are much narrower than most Brits appear to realise. It describes any transition period - which inevitably must be within full EU rules, so "soft" followed by what must inevitably be a "relatively hard" actual Brexit - as "Brexit postponed", though irreversible by that point.
EuroIntelligence is written from a pro-European perspective and focusses on the Eurozone in particular. There are some fascinating pieces posted recently - sadly, I could read it for hours - on the future of the Eurozone, including the interesting differences of opinion about the way forward between the Germans and French (I've been meaning to write a post on French economics and President Macron's interesting free market initiatives for some time). They also picked up on the report in today's Telegraph that key elements of Theresa May's Florence speech, in particular the phrases relating to Britain’s readiness to honour commitments made during EU membership and the pledge that nobody should pay additional sums as a result of the UK’s decision to leave, had been pre-agreed between UK and EU officials. In effect she took "dictation" from them, says Peter Foster***. Wow - and it still wasn't detailed enough for them. I'm sure they'll want us to be far more submissive before making any movement. What's the equivalent of the Maggie era slogan "Up Yours, Delors?"
* See Don't Walk Away, Renee 17 September. And yes, it is all rather like the 'Allo 'Allo! sitcom at times, isn't it?
**Brexit is a binary choice between EEA or third country status Eurointelligence, 26 Sept 2017
***Theresa May 'took dictation' from EU when she agreed to pay Brexit bill The Telegraph 27 Sept 2017
Sunday, 24 September 2017
Socialism Trumped
I was taken aback a few days ago to find myself in violent agreement with something Donald Trump said in his speech to the UN:
"From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation and failure".
The only thing I would add to that is that milder forms of socialism tend to head in the same direction but at a slower pace, witness the 1970s Labour government ending in the disarray of the winter of discontent and the Blair/Brown hegemony, with its gross over spending, leaving us horribly vulnerable to the global financial crisis and leading directly to the decade of hard slog (austerity if you will) that we have had to swallow to get even half way back towards stability.
Trump was widely derided for tweeting that President Obama had his wires tapped in Trump Tower just before his election victory. That might have been false news, but it has now emerged that the FBI did wire tap Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort: they were looking into links to Russia and had a court warrant. It is still not clear if Manafort will be charged, or if evidence to impeach Trump will emerge because of contacts with the successor to the Soviet state Trump slagged off in his speech.
Be that as it may and notwithstanding the amount of tripe that he utters, the Donald has spoken of a universal truth. One that is surely obvious. Though not to the band of apologists for the ultra-left, which just happens to be lead by the dangerously popular Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Popular partly because of populist policies, like significantly reducing university tuition fees and reducing the interest rate on student "loans". Policies which would misallocate resources to the few not the many, as anyone who has heard moneysavingexpert.com's Martin Lewis speak passionately on this subject will know. And, ironically, couldn't remotely be called socialist.
There are sensible reforms to higher education and its funding that could be made, but I don't expect to hear any proposed this week in Brighton. And there are more pressing issues for funding, though presumably Labour don't think they would be as popular.
Indeed, I don't expect to hear much sense coming from there at all, even though John McDonnell has suddenly switched to lauding Harold Wilson and his government's empty soundbite about the "white heat of technology" rather than Marx, as he tries to reposition himself towards the mainstream (a very long distance). I expect to hear plenty of sloganeering about the many not the few and lots of stuff on unquantified and unaffordable policies which would be counterproductive to that aspiration.
Corbyn and McDonnell would get us into trouble much more quickly than Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown and without the competence of a Jenkins, Healey or Darling to steady the ship.
Given the huge potential for the Tories to drop the ball, or just commit political hara-kiri all I can say is - life jackets at the ready!
"From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation and failure".
The only thing I would add to that is that milder forms of socialism tend to head in the same direction but at a slower pace, witness the 1970s Labour government ending in the disarray of the winter of discontent and the Blair/Brown hegemony, with its gross over spending, leaving us horribly vulnerable to the global financial crisis and leading directly to the decade of hard slog (austerity if you will) that we have had to swallow to get even half way back towards stability.
Trump was widely derided for tweeting that President Obama had his wires tapped in Trump Tower just before his election victory. That might have been false news, but it has now emerged that the FBI did wire tap Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort: they were looking into links to Russia and had a court warrant. It is still not clear if Manafort will be charged, or if evidence to impeach Trump will emerge because of contacts with the successor to the Soviet state Trump slagged off in his speech.
Be that as it may and notwithstanding the amount of tripe that he utters, the Donald has spoken of a universal truth. One that is surely obvious. Though not to the band of apologists for the ultra-left, which just happens to be lead by the dangerously popular Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Popular partly because of populist policies, like significantly reducing university tuition fees and reducing the interest rate on student "loans". Policies which would misallocate resources to the few not the many, as anyone who has heard moneysavingexpert.com's Martin Lewis speak passionately on this subject will know. And, ironically, couldn't remotely be called socialist.
There are sensible reforms to higher education and its funding that could be made, but I don't expect to hear any proposed this week in Brighton. And there are more pressing issues for funding, though presumably Labour don't think they would be as popular.
Indeed, I don't expect to hear much sense coming from there at all, even though John McDonnell has suddenly switched to lauding Harold Wilson and his government's empty soundbite about the "white heat of technology" rather than Marx, as he tries to reposition himself towards the mainstream (a very long distance). I expect to hear plenty of sloganeering about the many not the few and lots of stuff on unquantified and unaffordable policies which would be counterproductive to that aspiration.
Corbyn and McDonnell would get us into trouble much more quickly than Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown and without the competence of a Jenkins, Healey or Darling to steady the ship.
Given the huge potential for the Tories to drop the ball, or just commit political hara-kiri all I can say is - life jackets at the ready!
Saturday, 23 September 2017
May Day
In Florence Theresa May gave the speech that could - and should - have been given six months ago. But the Tories had to go through the first rounds of the "non" negotiation to coalesce behind a half way coherent approach to transition and exit, i.e. making sure the other 27 aren't immediately financially disadvantaged when we leave (else why should they co-operate one iota), a defined and time-limited transition to give businesses on both sides the chance to adjust and a bespoke future relationship, because none of the existing models work. Remember, this whole, enormous, energy-sapping endeavour is because of the Tory party's need to find a way of holding itself together. At every turn.
May's speech thawed the ice a bit, but amongst the warm noises were the expected barbs, mainly "not enough detail". Barnier, Merkel, Macron and others will keep taking turns at saying this. It was Macron's turn this time, saying there must be more detail on the exit bill, EU citizens' rights and the Irish border before trade talks can begin. This broken record approach will be leavened by words of encouragement to make us commit to huge costs with no guarantee of anything much in return. After all, they don't just want to preserve their bloated bureacracy till the end of their current budget in 2020, do they?
Per Yanis Varoufakis (and me), this is what you do when you want to ruin a negotiation, either because you don't want a deal at all or you want to put the other side under such time pressure come the end game that they will agree to almost anything. Rule 1 is "not enough detail". Note, it's never "that doesn't work for us, but something more like this might". Try again to pin ze tail on ze donkey that doesn't even exist, ya dumb rosbifs! Have another go, you dozy Brits! You're nowhere near - and the clock is running! If it was a game show it might be funny.
Per Nigel Lawson (see yesterday's post) we still don't get it - this isn't, for the EU, a negotiation about economic prosperity in the future. The EU is a political organisation, dedicated to its political survival and political development. We have threatened that and can't be allowed to get out and immediately flourish. It's not even about us. It's "pour encourager les autres".
P.S. The implications of the above are that we must be ready, if it continues to be a "non" negotiation, to walk away from Rene* in good time to put the pressure back on the other side. Barnier says there's only 12 months left, to allow time for ratifaction by 2019. I think we need to be sure we can get a deal with 12 months to go, which means in 6 months time, else we need to use our only card in these negotiations: they won't get the money and their budgets will suddenly be short. If we let the clock run down without being fully prepared for no deal we are in trouble. Either that or we start making visible and meaningful preparations for no deal. I do hope the cabinet has talked this through and are ready to be as fully behind it as they were May's bunch of platitudes in Florence.
* see Don't Walk Away, Renee? 17 Sept 2017
May's speech thawed the ice a bit, but amongst the warm noises were the expected barbs, mainly "not enough detail". Barnier, Merkel, Macron and others will keep taking turns at saying this. It was Macron's turn this time, saying there must be more detail on the exit bill, EU citizens' rights and the Irish border before trade talks can begin. This broken record approach will be leavened by words of encouragement to make us commit to huge costs with no guarantee of anything much in return. After all, they don't just want to preserve their bloated bureacracy till the end of their current budget in 2020, do they?
Per Yanis Varoufakis (and me), this is what you do when you want to ruin a negotiation, either because you don't want a deal at all or you want to put the other side under such time pressure come the end game that they will agree to almost anything. Rule 1 is "not enough detail". Note, it's never "that doesn't work for us, but something more like this might". Try again to pin ze tail on ze donkey that doesn't even exist, ya dumb rosbifs! Have another go, you dozy Brits! You're nowhere near - and the clock is running! If it was a game show it might be funny.
Per Nigel Lawson (see yesterday's post) we still don't get it - this isn't, for the EU, a negotiation about economic prosperity in the future. The EU is a political organisation, dedicated to its political survival and political development. We have threatened that and can't be allowed to get out and immediately flourish. It's not even about us. It's "pour encourager les autres".
P.S. The implications of the above are that we must be ready, if it continues to be a "non" negotiation, to walk away from Rene* in good time to put the pressure back on the other side. Barnier says there's only 12 months left, to allow time for ratifaction by 2019. I think we need to be sure we can get a deal with 12 months to go, which means in 6 months time, else we need to use our only card in these negotiations: they won't get the money and their budgets will suddenly be short. If we let the clock run down without being fully prepared for no deal we are in trouble. Either that or we start making visible and meaningful preparations for no deal. I do hope the cabinet has talked this through and are ready to be as fully behind it as they were May's bunch of platitudes in Florence.
* see Don't Walk Away, Renee? 17 Sept 2017
Friday, 22 September 2017
If only Brexit could be agreed by lunchtime
Today is the day Mrs May tries to get some movement into the Brexit negotiations trench warfare. I expect the reception will be lots of negative noises in foreign accents, especially if Yanis Varoufakis (and I) prove to be right that Brussels doesn't want to see a "successful" negotiation. In similar vein, former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, said that too much time and energy is being wasted on negotiations with Brussels. He went on "Those who say that a good trade deal is in the best interests of the EU and the UK alike wholly fail to understand what the EU is about. It is not about economics at all. It is a political enterprise, dedicated to the achievement of full political union"*. As I've been saying, their "project" matters more to them than economic prosperity.
A little while ago David Davis appealed, almost pathetically, for flexibility and innovation to move things forward in the Brexit negotiations. It reminded me, nostalgically, of the biggest commercial deal I ever negotiated, getting on for 15 years ago. One of my salesmen had been courting the Ministry of Defence, to whom our company provided services, over many months if not years. He was looking for a win-win where, if they would sign up in advance for packages of work which they normally bought piecemeal, there would be gains for both parties - the certainty of a long term contract for us and big price reductions for them based on real cost savings because the set up costs each time were huge. He found the ground fertile and the customer's buyers kept putting more things in the pan - "what if we add in this? And that?" When I told the company's corporate centre wallahs that our price was going over £20 million (main board approval was needed for a formal bid over £10 millon) I'm sure they thought I was on something rather than onto something. But in due course we were invited to submit a tender against a spec that lead to a price of around £22 million. At this point my corporate friends got over excited and, after the bid had gone in and we headed off to the first serious negotiation, I was briefed by the CEO to get the deal signed by the end of the week (!?) at a price not less than £20 million, so it could be publicised with the company half year results, which I guessed clearly needed 'sexing up'. (The company was a stock exchange quoted plc, at its zenith on the fringe of the FTSE 250).
The first morning's negotiation proceeded painfully slowly, with my 2 colleagues dealing with nit picking details posed by the other side, which outnumbered us by a factor of 2 (they were civil servants after all) and which eroded our price by tiny sums, totalling maybe £100k altogether. As lunchtime approached I figured that the negotiation was proceeding at a rate that wouldn't lead to a deal anything like in time. Even with my passion for detail, the thought of more than a week of this made me feel almost suicidal. But desperation kicked my brain into gear. Addressing my opposite number, I said "I think I've figured out your brief and, in order to move things forward more quickly, I'm happy to tell you mine" and then paused for silence to work its magic. Sitting next to me, my commercial manager, who I'd worked with on and off for over a decade, looked horrified and went a very funny colour. The response from across the table was something like "er, ok....". "I suspect you've been told to get the deal done but not at more than £20 million" I said, again leaving a silence. The wry smiles on the faces of the other team confirmed that my hunch was right. Then they started to look intrigued. "My brief is to do the deal quickly but at not less than £20 million". Intrigue was replaced with concern. "However, I expect I can get agreement for a price of, say £19.95 million, as long as we get it signed this week and you are happy for us to announce the contract is valued at around £20 million". "Why don't we break for lunch now and we'll respond when we get back together" was the response. Instead of taking stock and pondering what to do over lunch, my team was able to talk about interesting stuff like football, albeit nervously, while I made a quick call back to the ranch. The afternoon session was convivial and brisk: we agreed the price at £19.95M, placed actions for the teams to flog through the detail to get the necessary price breakdown schedules to come to the right number and what the process would be to sign the documents and agree the press release. I was back in my office 60 miles away before the folks there went home, with a diary freed up for the whole of the rest of the week.
If only Brexit could be resolved so easily. The thing was - we both wanted to do a good deal, one that left everybody happy. Michel Barnier's brief is to leave the UK feeling bruised, battered and unhappy. There's no way that can ever be a win-win. The best that can be achieved is a broadly equal degree of unhappiness, an equality of misery.
But I can't help hoping David Davis still looks cheerful at the end of it and Barnier looks like the proverbial sick parrot. Indeed, some days the only "win" I can see would be for the apparently unflappable and cheerful Davies to drive misery mush Barnier to a nervous breakdown. An uncharitable thought, but I bet I'm not the only one!
*Nigel Lawson's piece was in the FT
A little while ago David Davis appealed, almost pathetically, for flexibility and innovation to move things forward in the Brexit negotiations. It reminded me, nostalgically, of the biggest commercial deal I ever negotiated, getting on for 15 years ago. One of my salesmen had been courting the Ministry of Defence, to whom our company provided services, over many months if not years. He was looking for a win-win where, if they would sign up in advance for packages of work which they normally bought piecemeal, there would be gains for both parties - the certainty of a long term contract for us and big price reductions for them based on real cost savings because the set up costs each time were huge. He found the ground fertile and the customer's buyers kept putting more things in the pan - "what if we add in this? And that?" When I told the company's corporate centre wallahs that our price was going over £20 million (main board approval was needed for a formal bid over £10 millon) I'm sure they thought I was on something rather than onto something. But in due course we were invited to submit a tender against a spec that lead to a price of around £22 million. At this point my corporate friends got over excited and, after the bid had gone in and we headed off to the first serious negotiation, I was briefed by the CEO to get the deal signed by the end of the week (!?) at a price not less than £20 million, so it could be publicised with the company half year results, which I guessed clearly needed 'sexing up'. (The company was a stock exchange quoted plc, at its zenith on the fringe of the FTSE 250).
The first morning's negotiation proceeded painfully slowly, with my 2 colleagues dealing with nit picking details posed by the other side, which outnumbered us by a factor of 2 (they were civil servants after all) and which eroded our price by tiny sums, totalling maybe £100k altogether. As lunchtime approached I figured that the negotiation was proceeding at a rate that wouldn't lead to a deal anything like in time. Even with my passion for detail, the thought of more than a week of this made me feel almost suicidal. But desperation kicked my brain into gear. Addressing my opposite number, I said "I think I've figured out your brief and, in order to move things forward more quickly, I'm happy to tell you mine" and then paused for silence to work its magic. Sitting next to me, my commercial manager, who I'd worked with on and off for over a decade, looked horrified and went a very funny colour. The response from across the table was something like "er, ok....". "I suspect you've been told to get the deal done but not at more than £20 million" I said, again leaving a silence. The wry smiles on the faces of the other team confirmed that my hunch was right. Then they started to look intrigued. "My brief is to do the deal quickly but at not less than £20 million". Intrigue was replaced with concern. "However, I expect I can get agreement for a price of, say £19.95 million, as long as we get it signed this week and you are happy for us to announce the contract is valued at around £20 million". "Why don't we break for lunch now and we'll respond when we get back together" was the response. Instead of taking stock and pondering what to do over lunch, my team was able to talk about interesting stuff like football, albeit nervously, while I made a quick call back to the ranch. The afternoon session was convivial and brisk: we agreed the price at £19.95M, placed actions for the teams to flog through the detail to get the necessary price breakdown schedules to come to the right number and what the process would be to sign the documents and agree the press release. I was back in my office 60 miles away before the folks there went home, with a diary freed up for the whole of the rest of the week.
If only Brexit could be resolved so easily. The thing was - we both wanted to do a good deal, one that left everybody happy. Michel Barnier's brief is to leave the UK feeling bruised, battered and unhappy. There's no way that can ever be a win-win. The best that can be achieved is a broadly equal degree of unhappiness, an equality of misery.
But I can't help hoping David Davis still looks cheerful at the end of it and Barnier looks like the proverbial sick parrot. Indeed, some days the only "win" I can see would be for the apparently unflappable and cheerful Davies to drive misery mush Barnier to a nervous breakdown. An uncharitable thought, but I bet I'm not the only one!
*Nigel Lawson's piece was in the FT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)