I said predicting winners in a competitive sport like golf was a mug's game (Wide Open Indeed, 18 July). And predictably I was a mug.
My first pick, world number one Dustin Johnson, affectionately called "cokehead" by Mrs H (Johnson took several months 'voluntary leave' from the USPGA tour in 2014 amid rumours of a failed drugs test which Golf Magazine said was his third, all for recreational substances) didn't bring his 'A' game. Maybe he'd brought other stuff with him in his luggage.
Rickie Fowler remains the best current player not to have won a major. I said he had blown hot and cold this year and he illustrated that perfectly by blowing hot and cold in the tournament.
Henrik Stenson had done well in his previous tournament, the US Open but I noted he hadn't played since and wondered if he was saving himself. If so it didn't work - Stenson did ok but never threatened the leaders.
Tommy Fleetwood had one outstanding round but turned in a performance as scruffy as his appearance on the final day, though he was by no means the only one to feel disappointed with how they handled the breezier conditions in the pressure of an Open Sunday afternoon. After all, Jordan Spieth, who has won a lot of bets for me over the last couple of years, had a poor final round, summed up by his agressive if not bizarre choice of club - a 3 wood (yes, I know they're made of metal) - after pushing his drive into the crowd on Carnoustie's 6th hole. His ball disappeared into a gorse bush and Spieth collapsed from being favourite to win and become the first man under 25 to win consecutive Opens since the 19th Century to finish tied 9th. I normally pick Spieth and was kicking myself on Saturday night, but felt I'd got that one right by the time of the presentation. Fleetwood's day will hopefully come, however. After all, he's a good lad - Everton fan!
I rejected Justin Rose as, while consistently excellent, he hasn't done really well at the Open for a long time. And it looked the same again until he scraped past the cut on Friday with a second round birdie on the last hole. He followed that with an outstanding third round of 64 and good final round to finish tied 2nd while never quite looking as if he might win. His day in the Open may also yet still come. As my mate Dan had picked him, this time he cost me a sleeve of 3 golf balls.
I said the biggest story would be if Tiger Woods won his 15th Major. And it really did look like he would, as he took the lead more than half way through his final round. There were more than glimpses of the old Tiger, though there were also glimpses of the frailties that are normal even for top players but seemed almost totally absent when he was in his prime. It was notable that, having hit a poor shot into the crowd on hole 11, he followed it up with another weak shot and then a third fairly weak one, dropping two shots to par on the hole. I can relate to hitting three poor shots in a row as I do it all too often, but Woods at his best probably never did that. For reasons I've gone into before I personally don't want Woods to beat Jack Nicklaus's record of 16 wins in the Majors, but I'd love him to win a 15th or even a 16th to keep the story bubbling. It could still happen but this was probably his best chance.
One of the reasons it probably won't happen is that the younger players, while having enormous respect for Woods, aren't intimated by him like their predecessors were. And so Francesco Molinari, playing with Woods, held his nerve and won with a superbly composed final day performance. Molinari was the only player out of 79 who didn't drop a shot to par on any of the 18 holes on Sunday. I thought the BBC TV news damned him with faint praise, showing him scoring par after par while others dramatically gained and lost shots, implying it was a bit boring, when some of his par saves were outstanding. And it wasn't just Faldo-esque as he bagged two birdies in the closing 5 holes to seal the deal. (Nick Faldo famously parred every hole in his final round on the way to winning his first Major in 1987).
But not only that, Molinari was one of Mrs H's two picks for the tournament. The other was Ian Poulter, her favourite golfer who she always picks. While appearing to have her head down in her books and puzzles while I watched golf stuff, she had obviously absorbed that Molinari was playing really well this year and I said "good call" when she picked him on Wednesday. When she asked what her prize was and I told her it was 3 golf balls I thought she said something about addressing them, the term for preparing to take a golf shot, which would be odd as she doesn't play golf. I then realised she hadn't said "address" but "a dress"....
Anyway, respect is due to both Francesco and Mrs H, who obviously knows more about golf than me.
Monday, 23 July 2018
Wednesday, 18 July 2018
Wide Open indeed
It was a very good and entertaining World Cup. Certainly one of the better ones. And, as I predicted (it wasn't hard!) it was wide open for one of a number of teams, including England for St George's sake, to win (Wide open? 16 June).
I said that, while Brazil were the favourites, I wasn't convinced they had improved that much since they got smashed by Germany in their own back yard last time round. They hadn't.
I said Germany felt beatable. Tick. I said Spain's change of manager could be good or bad for their morale, but they could be ok. They weren't. But they did feature in one of the games of the tournament, against Ronaldo and ten others.
I said that France had a lot of big name players, but I had my doubts. Pogba turned up some of the time - when he does he looks unplayable - but also spent some time, as I predicted, strutting around like a spoiled rich kid but not actually doing anything. In my youth that was called "poncing about" but I guess you're not allowed to say that now. Maybe not, but Pogba shows doing it hasn't been banned. I said I had never been particularly impressed with Griezmann and I'm still not. There are occasional rumours about him coming to the Premier League, but I would be surprised. Even if he wanted to I couldn't see any takers, at least not now Arsenal's manager's name doesn't begin with "Arse". I wondered whether Mbappe was the real deal - obviously we can all now see that he is, the first teenager to score in a World Cup final since Pele 60 years ago. Because Kante and Matuidi more than covered for Pogba, and Varane and Umtiti defended well, France were able to use their devastating pace (when Pogba decides to move he's fast as well as Mbappe) to look even more dangerous than Belgium on the break. They deserved to win but arguably weren't tested by the highest quality opposition.
I said Belgium could go well. They did and will probably be a bit disappointed at falling short. Undoubtedly they will not be as pleased as England to have got to the semis.
Although I hadn't been holding my breath in anticipation, England delighted the nation, even if their expected limitations, in particular a painful shortage of creativity, were plain to see. Naturally I was delighted that Jordan Pickford did well. Personally I thought he deserved the Golden Glove award. As a 6ft 1in midget he clearly, inch for inch, outperformed beanstalk Thibaut Cortouis, all of 5 inches taller. At least if Courtois does move overseas as is being mooted I won't have to go to Chelsea's game at Goodison next year just to shout abuse at him for his risible comments about Pickford failing to save Januzaj's shot in the first Belgium game and being too small. (Those who know me best know I'm not joking!) Lee Dixon's comments about him trying to save it with the wrong hand were even dafter, even if it had been fed to him by David Seaman: they clearly forgot Pickford is left handed, at least until he made the vital penalty save in the shoot out against Colombia. I wonder if England's renewed popularity with the public will survive being in a "group of death" in the new UEFA Nations League with Spain and Croatia (them again, maybe Modric will have been jailed for perjury) in the autumn.
Croatia were the surprise package and they very nearly came through like Greece in Euro 2004, as I said someone might. While England showed football is still a team game, Croatia added grit and bottle to teamwork, coming from behind against both Denmark and Russia before winning both on penalties. Oh and having two top class midfielders helped a bit as well.
The other team I commented on were "perennial underperformers" Argentina, who I said I found unconvincing. "After all, can you win the World Cup with Willy Caballero in goal?" I asked. Rhetorical question, I know - Caballero was soon dropped after attempting to chip the ball over on onrushing Croatian forward, a mistake that I can't separate from Hugo Lloris's pratfall in the final as both were equally brainless. I also said that, for Leo Messi to be ranked the best player ever - as many experts have said he is - he would need to turn in a really good performance in what was likely to be his last World Cup "rather than looking like an imposter most of the time". The imposter continued to turn up. Now I of course accept that Messi is a great player. But I am fairly sure I am in a minority (I certainly am with my two sons) in saying that, given the choice between them, I would go for Cristiano Ronaldo every time. I see this through the eyes of a lightweight teenage winger and an only slightly more filled out adult centre back. If your team is under the cosh and holding on through an Alamo like siege, you want a player up front who you know you only need to get the right ball to once and he will score a solo goal that will turn the game, even if he hasn't had the scent of a chance all game. For me that's Ronaldo not Messi. Rod Liddle, writing on the heroes and villains of the World Cup in last weekend's Sunday Times, said
Leo Messi. You remember! Long face, lugubrious expression, dodgy tax returns. Never scored a goal in a knockout game in any World Cup. Almost a bystander as Argentina were beaten by France. So good they built the team round him - mistake. So enigmatic he effectively ceased to exist. But such a wonderful club player, which is how he will be remembered - among the second echelon.
Even I think that's a tad harsh, Rod. But the fact is Messi has appeared in four World Cups and, despite mystifyingly winning the Golden Ball best player award in 2014, has never remotely reproduced his club form on that stage. Some players, like George Best, never get the chance to perform in a major tournament for their country. So I accept you can't only take international performances as the main benchmark. But Messi has had more than enough chance to prove himself on that stage and has conspicuously failed. Whereas Ronaldo didn't just draw with Spain with limited help, he dragged Portugal to a European Championships win. I rest my case, boys!
As well as plenty of good football, the tournament seemed well organised and had a good atmosphere. I don't particularly welcome the good publicity for Putin, but he presumably had the advantage of being able to bang up all the Russian hooligans or at least issue some heavy and believable threats as to the consequences if they showed their faces in any of the cities hosting the matches.
We can now turn our attention to an appetising cricket series with India and the Open golf. In passing I note that the Football Association chiefs are now introducing themselves abroad as being from the "English FA" in order not to appear arrogant. I doubt that approach will commend itself to golf's Royal and Ancient....
For my routine bet on the Open (small stake, no cash!) I am picking between Dustin Johnson, whose swing I have always admired and has a natural fade which suits Carnoustie; Tommy Fleetwood who holds the course record there and finally managed to play ok at an Open last time at Birkdale, though after a ropey start; Rickie Fowler who has an outstanding record at golf's majors and must surely win one eventually, though his form has blown hot and cold this year; and Henrik Stenson, a past winner who did well at the last major, the US Open. Stenson hasn't played since - maybe he has been saving himself.
I left Justin Rose off my shortlist. Although he is perhaps the world's most consistent player over the last year or two he hasn't performed at his best in an Open in a long time. But I'd be delighted if he proved me wrong and won.
Picking winners in such a competitive sport is, of course, a mug's game. But the player who would write the biggest story if he won is, of course, Tiger Woods. Woods has a good record at the Open, winning it three times and he plays links golf strategically, unlike many of the pros who turn up with only minor modifications to their normal game. Woods finished in the top 12 in the last Carnoustie Opens, in 1999 and 2007. There is a stellar list of previous winners, including Tom Watson, Gary Player and Henry Cotton. But one other stellar winner's name seizes the imagination: Ben Hogan. Hogan was just short of his 42nd birthday when he came to Carnoustie and won in 1953, his body rebuilt after a serious car accident. Tiger Woods is 42 and has got back into the top 100 in the world golf rankings after major back surgery, following on from a serious knee injury. Oh and a car crash of a private life of course. Could he do it? Well he clearly could. Will he? I'm not betting on it, but what drama that would be.
I said that, while Brazil were the favourites, I wasn't convinced they had improved that much since they got smashed by Germany in their own back yard last time round. They hadn't.
I said Germany felt beatable. Tick. I said Spain's change of manager could be good or bad for their morale, but they could be ok. They weren't. But they did feature in one of the games of the tournament, against Ronaldo and ten others.
I said that France had a lot of big name players, but I had my doubts. Pogba turned up some of the time - when he does he looks unplayable - but also spent some time, as I predicted, strutting around like a spoiled rich kid but not actually doing anything. In my youth that was called "poncing about" but I guess you're not allowed to say that now. Maybe not, but Pogba shows doing it hasn't been banned. I said I had never been particularly impressed with Griezmann and I'm still not. There are occasional rumours about him coming to the Premier League, but I would be surprised. Even if he wanted to I couldn't see any takers, at least not now Arsenal's manager's name doesn't begin with "Arse". I wondered whether Mbappe was the real deal - obviously we can all now see that he is, the first teenager to score in a World Cup final since Pele 60 years ago. Because Kante and Matuidi more than covered for Pogba, and Varane and Umtiti defended well, France were able to use their devastating pace (when Pogba decides to move he's fast as well as Mbappe) to look even more dangerous than Belgium on the break. They deserved to win but arguably weren't tested by the highest quality opposition.
I said Belgium could go well. They did and will probably be a bit disappointed at falling short. Undoubtedly they will not be as pleased as England to have got to the semis.
Although I hadn't been holding my breath in anticipation, England delighted the nation, even if their expected limitations, in particular a painful shortage of creativity, were plain to see. Naturally I was delighted that Jordan Pickford did well. Personally I thought he deserved the Golden Glove award. As a 6ft 1in midget he clearly, inch for inch, outperformed beanstalk Thibaut Cortouis, all of 5 inches taller. At least if Courtois does move overseas as is being mooted I won't have to go to Chelsea's game at Goodison next year just to shout abuse at him for his risible comments about Pickford failing to save Januzaj's shot in the first Belgium game and being too small. (Those who know me best know I'm not joking!) Lee Dixon's comments about him trying to save it with the wrong hand were even dafter, even if it had been fed to him by David Seaman: they clearly forgot Pickford is left handed, at least until he made the vital penalty save in the shoot out against Colombia. I wonder if England's renewed popularity with the public will survive being in a "group of death" in the new UEFA Nations League with Spain and Croatia (them again, maybe Modric will have been jailed for perjury) in the autumn.
Croatia were the surprise package and they very nearly came through like Greece in Euro 2004, as I said someone might. While England showed football is still a team game, Croatia added grit and bottle to teamwork, coming from behind against both Denmark and Russia before winning both on penalties. Oh and having two top class midfielders helped a bit as well.
The other team I commented on were "perennial underperformers" Argentina, who I said I found unconvincing. "After all, can you win the World Cup with Willy Caballero in goal?" I asked. Rhetorical question, I know - Caballero was soon dropped after attempting to chip the ball over on onrushing Croatian forward, a mistake that I can't separate from Hugo Lloris's pratfall in the final as both were equally brainless. I also said that, for Leo Messi to be ranked the best player ever - as many experts have said he is - he would need to turn in a really good performance in what was likely to be his last World Cup "rather than looking like an imposter most of the time". The imposter continued to turn up. Now I of course accept that Messi is a great player. But I am fairly sure I am in a minority (I certainly am with my two sons) in saying that, given the choice between them, I would go for Cristiano Ronaldo every time. I see this through the eyes of a lightweight teenage winger and an only slightly more filled out adult centre back. If your team is under the cosh and holding on through an Alamo like siege, you want a player up front who you know you only need to get the right ball to once and he will score a solo goal that will turn the game, even if he hasn't had the scent of a chance all game. For me that's Ronaldo not Messi. Rod Liddle, writing on the heroes and villains of the World Cup in last weekend's Sunday Times, said
Leo Messi. You remember! Long face, lugubrious expression, dodgy tax returns. Never scored a goal in a knockout game in any World Cup. Almost a bystander as Argentina were beaten by France. So good they built the team round him - mistake. So enigmatic he effectively ceased to exist. But such a wonderful club player, which is how he will be remembered - among the second echelon.
Even I think that's a tad harsh, Rod. But the fact is Messi has appeared in four World Cups and, despite mystifyingly winning the Golden Ball best player award in 2014, has never remotely reproduced his club form on that stage. Some players, like George Best, never get the chance to perform in a major tournament for their country. So I accept you can't only take international performances as the main benchmark. But Messi has had more than enough chance to prove himself on that stage and has conspicuously failed. Whereas Ronaldo didn't just draw with Spain with limited help, he dragged Portugal to a European Championships win. I rest my case, boys!
As well as plenty of good football, the tournament seemed well organised and had a good atmosphere. I don't particularly welcome the good publicity for Putin, but he presumably had the advantage of being able to bang up all the Russian hooligans or at least issue some heavy and believable threats as to the consequences if they showed their faces in any of the cities hosting the matches.
We can now turn our attention to an appetising cricket series with India and the Open golf. In passing I note that the Football Association chiefs are now introducing themselves abroad as being from the "English FA" in order not to appear arrogant. I doubt that approach will commend itself to golf's Royal and Ancient....
For my routine bet on the Open (small stake, no cash!) I am picking between Dustin Johnson, whose swing I have always admired and has a natural fade which suits Carnoustie; Tommy Fleetwood who holds the course record there and finally managed to play ok at an Open last time at Birkdale, though after a ropey start; Rickie Fowler who has an outstanding record at golf's majors and must surely win one eventually, though his form has blown hot and cold this year; and Henrik Stenson, a past winner who did well at the last major, the US Open. Stenson hasn't played since - maybe he has been saving himself.
I left Justin Rose off my shortlist. Although he is perhaps the world's most consistent player over the last year or two he hasn't performed at his best in an Open in a long time. But I'd be delighted if he proved me wrong and won.
Picking winners in such a competitive sport is, of course, a mug's game. But the player who would write the biggest story if he won is, of course, Tiger Woods. Woods has a good record at the Open, winning it three times and he plays links golf strategically, unlike many of the pros who turn up with only minor modifications to their normal game. Woods finished in the top 12 in the last Carnoustie Opens, in 1999 and 2007. There is a stellar list of previous winners, including Tom Watson, Gary Player and Henry Cotton. But one other stellar winner's name seizes the imagination: Ben Hogan. Hogan was just short of his 42nd birthday when he came to Carnoustie and won in 1953, his body rebuilt after a serious car accident. Tiger Woods is 42 and has got back into the top 100 in the world golf rankings after major back surgery, following on from a serious knee injury. Oh and a car crash of a private life of course. Could he do it? Well he clearly could. Will he? I'm not betting on it, but what drama that would be.
Thursday, 12 July 2018
How polished is it?
So Boris Johnson has gone from the cabinet, though I expect we'll hear more rather than less from him for a bit, now he's free to speak. Not that he seemed to be backward in coming forward in that respect, mind. And he left with a phrase which can't help but stay in the memory, "polishing a turd". So, is it - the Chequers compromise - a turd?
Well, of course, because it's a compromise then all those seeking a "full" Brexit and all those preferring the softest of non-Brexits will agree that it is, because it's emphatically not what they wish to see. That doesn't mean it isn't the best option now though. It might be, though I have my doubts. However, it might be politically well judged.
If it is the mildest Brexit that most of the Tory hardline Brexiteers could swallow without gagging while also being the hardest Brexit that the Tory remainers can take then it might, with some cross party support, command a Commons majority.
Of course we don't know if the EU will agree to it, or anything like it, though it's notable that they haven't immediately rubbished it like every previous UK pronouncement. The almost radio silence they have maintained suggests a degree of, if not pre-agreement, then at least an advance agreement to leave comments to the actual negotiations. It struck me when May went scooting off to see Merkel and others before the Chequers awayday that an intelligent aporoach might be to agree what could be agreed with the EU beforehand. After all, presenting the cabinet with "this is what we can negotiate" might have been the only way to get agreement round that table. I rather doubt this is what actually happened, mainly because I don't think May is that clever and I doubt it would be any easier to get an unofficial pre-agreement with the biggest gorillas in the rump EU.
But even if there was only an agreement for the EU side to hold their tongues, the clever thing about the Chequers turd is that, if the EU side won't buy it, then it becomes obvious that there isn't much scope for a bespoke agreement. That would mean, as anything softer wouldn't get through the Commons (and wouldn't be much of a Brexit anyway) we're heading for Canada plus plus plus or no official deal. Knowledgeable blogger Wolfgang Munchau has been claiming the probability of no deal is increasing for some time now. One thing May has done is give her Brexiteer wing every chance - and almost every last minute in the negotiating schedule - to come up with a credible version of their Brexit. They failed.
One point that exercised my mind was the statement that we could still do our own free trade deals. Maybe not with the US though, as we would be sticking too close to the EU rule book to import their chlorinated chicken. This rather ludicrous example took hold in our press months ago. On that point, most people seem averse to American chlorinated chicken. And yet we read in the papers a while ago that most of the fresh chicken in our supermarkets is contaminated with campylobacter and that hygiene standards in our processing plants is poor*. Personally I know which I would prefer and it's not food poisoning.
But returning to the main point on the ability to do trade deals with non-EU countries, I think it is notable that, unlike Davis and Johnson, Liam Fox didn't resign, so presumably he thinks he still has a job he can do.
For myself, I don't see how the turd fixes Ireland, though I've already suggested how that can be fixed. (We don't put up border posts whatever. If the Irish are told to do it by the EU then they aren't our border posts and it's not our fault or problem).
The compromise doesn't seem to prejudice my personal red lines: control of borders and no interference in our domestic laws by the ECJ. For example, while I don't have strong feelings about whether prisoners should be able to vote I have extremely strong feelings about a court from outside the UK telling us we must do it. This I will not have - and I think I'm far from alone.
So yes, by definition it's a turd. But it might be the basis of a way forward. Let's see if Barnier thinks it stinks. I don't think I mind too much either way, as long as, if he does, we walk away rather than watering it down further, to mangle my metaphors.
The white paper is published today. We'll see if it's a pile of steaming ordure.
*British supermarket chickens show record levels of antibiotic resistant superbugs. The Guardian, 15 January 2018.
Well, of course, because it's a compromise then all those seeking a "full" Brexit and all those preferring the softest of non-Brexits will agree that it is, because it's emphatically not what they wish to see. That doesn't mean it isn't the best option now though. It might be, though I have my doubts. However, it might be politically well judged.
If it is the mildest Brexit that most of the Tory hardline Brexiteers could swallow without gagging while also being the hardest Brexit that the Tory remainers can take then it might, with some cross party support, command a Commons majority.
Of course we don't know if the EU will agree to it, or anything like it, though it's notable that they haven't immediately rubbished it like every previous UK pronouncement. The almost radio silence they have maintained suggests a degree of, if not pre-agreement, then at least an advance agreement to leave comments to the actual negotiations. It struck me when May went scooting off to see Merkel and others before the Chequers awayday that an intelligent aporoach might be to agree what could be agreed with the EU beforehand. After all, presenting the cabinet with "this is what we can negotiate" might have been the only way to get agreement round that table. I rather doubt this is what actually happened, mainly because I don't think May is that clever and I doubt it would be any easier to get an unofficial pre-agreement with the biggest gorillas in the rump EU.
But even if there was only an agreement for the EU side to hold their tongues, the clever thing about the Chequers turd is that, if the EU side won't buy it, then it becomes obvious that there isn't much scope for a bespoke agreement. That would mean, as anything softer wouldn't get through the Commons (and wouldn't be much of a Brexit anyway) we're heading for Canada plus plus plus or no official deal. Knowledgeable blogger Wolfgang Munchau has been claiming the probability of no deal is increasing for some time now. One thing May has done is give her Brexiteer wing every chance - and almost every last minute in the negotiating schedule - to come up with a credible version of their Brexit. They failed.
One point that exercised my mind was the statement that we could still do our own free trade deals. Maybe not with the US though, as we would be sticking too close to the EU rule book to import their chlorinated chicken. This rather ludicrous example took hold in our press months ago. On that point, most people seem averse to American chlorinated chicken. And yet we read in the papers a while ago that most of the fresh chicken in our supermarkets is contaminated with campylobacter and that hygiene standards in our processing plants is poor*. Personally I know which I would prefer and it's not food poisoning.
But returning to the main point on the ability to do trade deals with non-EU countries, I think it is notable that, unlike Davis and Johnson, Liam Fox didn't resign, so presumably he thinks he still has a job he can do.
For myself, I don't see how the turd fixes Ireland, though I've already suggested how that can be fixed. (We don't put up border posts whatever. If the Irish are told to do it by the EU then they aren't our border posts and it's not our fault or problem).
The compromise doesn't seem to prejudice my personal red lines: control of borders and no interference in our domestic laws by the ECJ. For example, while I don't have strong feelings about whether prisoners should be able to vote I have extremely strong feelings about a court from outside the UK telling us we must do it. This I will not have - and I think I'm far from alone.
So yes, by definition it's a turd. But it might be the basis of a way forward. Let's see if Barnier thinks it stinks. I don't think I mind too much either way, as long as, if he does, we walk away rather than watering it down further, to mangle my metaphors.
The white paper is published today. We'll see if it's a pile of steaming ordure.
*British supermarket chickens show record levels of antibiotic resistant superbugs. The Guardian, 15 January 2018.
Saturday, 30 June 2018
How do we keep Airbus and BMW in the UK?
My buddy challenged me the other day to write a blog about how we could make sure Airbus and BMW don't move production out of the UK. I'll leave to one side the fact that, after one BMW boss had said they were considering moving production, another said they weren't. And whether, even if what the second one said is correct then what about manufacture of components? After all, tariffs won't be the major issue for things like motor car manufacture, it will be country of origin rules, with all their arcane implications for assembled goods like cars. As I say I'll leave all that to one side for now. But some say an Airbus decision to exit the UK could affect more than 100,000 highly paid British jobs, so that's a big deal.
It's tempting to say that solving Rubik's cube or who created the creator are more tempting - and tractable - problems, though I'm sure that at least one of them would take me until after March 2019. But my initial reaction was that there are two choices. The first is to cut and run by applying for immediate membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), whether intending it to be temporary, until some other solution can be created, or permanent. This would keep us in the single market and would appear to head off, for now, the Airbus-BMW issue. Three EFTA members: Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, along with the current EU 28, form the European Economic Area (EEA). These three countries use EFTA's Surveillance Authority for compliance and there is an EFTA Court for dispute resolution. Switzerland operates differently and has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU. It would appear to me that there isn't enough time available to conclude bilateral agreements - after all, that is what we have been trying to do and we are running out of time. So presumably it would have to be Norway style EFTA, not Swiss.
This first option must work, mustn't it? After all, David Owen, my first political hero, was advocating it well over a year ago. But there are some big problems. The "four freedoms" (movement of goods, services, capital and people) apply. And we would have to pay in to the EU budget, while having no influence over it or EU regulations. Apparently Switzerland pays in more per capita than the UK does currently. But we could presumably participate in Euratom (Switzerland does) and the European Defence Agency (Norway does), solving some other yet unresolved issues. And the EEA doesn't cover agriculture and fisheries so we get out of some things, maybe.
My main difficulty with this solution is that it condemns us (because temporary would probably become permanent) to a definitely worse position than we had before the referendum, i.e. in the EU but with our opt-outs. We would have to hope that the EU can resolve the migration issues, which it is singularly failing to do at the moment. And accept that internal EU migration was never the main problem or concern (which, for EU citizens, it wasn't). But if we feel that our position is inevitably worse than the status quo ante and it's a matter of limiting the damage, isn't this a way forward?
But hold on a moment. EFTA members aren't in the EU customs union, so it's not clear to me that this fully solves the Airbus issue (though it might) but it definitely doesn't solve the Ireland border issue! This is why there are customs borders, even if they are light touch, between the EU and both Switzerland and Norway. So I'm not at all clear that this is a viable solution, let alone an attractive one.
The second option is brinkmanship: to press on and try to get the best deal we can. If we assume that "crashing out" with no deal would cause major short term problems we have to rely on the Europeans blinking. After all, some commentators say German industry is worried about this happening and some of the rump EU's 27 states - but not very influential ones - are pressing Brussels not to let it happen. As I've characterised the eurocrats before as self harming psycopaths, for whom their project is more important than the well being of their people, it's not clear to me that they will blink. This is why I think we probably should have tested that by walking away from the negotiations last year.
There is of course a third option: seek to stay in the EU. But I have rejected that as the implicit question was how we save our industry while still exiting the EU.
So what is worrying me somewhat is that I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question.
In last week's Sunday Times Tommy Stubbington wrote a column, "We can fix Brexit" saying that Britain's main five business groups, the CBI, British Chamber of Commerce, Institute of Directors, the manufacturers' organisation the EEF (which it's called because it was once the Engineering Employers' Federation) and the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) were desperately pleading to government for an involvement in the negotiations, saying time is running out and they can fix Brexit. However, reading the column revealed that, while their case for urgency is strong - businesses are starting to implement contingency plans to move activities out of the UK having long since put investment on hold - their ideas on how to make progress sounded pretty thin. The main thrust was Britain has been creative, pragmatism is needed on both sides and now it's the EU's turn. "We have seen major steps to pragmatic compromise on the UK side. This is the time for the EU to respond in kind. The EU has such capability to be creative" said one of the bigwigs. The problem with that is it is just what David Davis has been saying for 9 months now. Why would the EU respond any differently to a bunch of British businessmen?
Indeed, the EU has refused to allow its aviation officials to hold contingency talks with its UK counterparts to keep planes flying if no deal is struck by March. That could, in principle, mean "planes are grounded and wings for half the world's civil aircraft, made by Airbus, could be deemed illegal for use on planes licensed by the EU". (I take this to be hyperbole, surely it would be for planes going into service for the first time, the ones already flying have been licensed. But it would mean Airbus would be laying in to Brussels so that could help).
Stubbington noted that one of the business leaders said that the EU should "seriously consider" May's request for a bespoke deal. But said bigwig also went on to opine "What we are seeking to agree with the EU is a reverse free trade agreement. Nobody on this planet has done that before. Every FTA that has been negotiated has been about getting people to align closer. This is a unique scenario - so we need a unique solution". Great. The EU has said pretty well throughout that it will only offer one of its standard pre-baked options.
For what its worth I think we have to hold our nerve and trust that the Foreign Office and Davis's team have been talking to friendly countries within the rump EU 27 to assess what they will do if the Council of Ministers are presented with no deal. They would have the power to extend the timescales, one way or another. The big problem with brinkmanship is that damage is being done to British business now and it's going to get much worse over the next 8 months. But, of course, that doesn't bother France and Germany an iota; it's what they want, to gain a competitive advantage and, as businessmen are wont to say, steal our lunch.
But the news that a traditional friend of Britain, Mark Rutte the Dutch Prime Minister, responded to Theresa May's plea for close ongoing security co-operation with the EU by saying "Forget cherry-picking, focus on fixing the Irish border" is not encouraging. (Reported yesterday by The Times).
My definitive answer is that I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have agreed the divorce bill without a firm linkage to a bespoke trade deal. And I definitely wouldn't have agreed the ridiculous Irish border fallback, which the UK side seemed to think was hypothetical at the time, because it wasn't going to happen. This isn't hindsight: I said the day after the joint report on phase 1 of the negotiations was published "So the onus remains entirely on us to bring forward ideas to fix the potentially unfixable. The EU side can just refuse to agree to anything they or the Republic don't like. They don't have to do anything other than say "non" and "This gives the EU side the most enormous lever in future negotiations. I'm sure they won't hesitate to use it." (see Reasons to be Cheerful - or Entangled? 8 December 2017). And, as all readers know, I would have considered walking out of the negotiations to pitch them into an early crisis, while there was still time to fix it, last autumn. I accept though that this would have been risky and Theresa May's government might not have survived so I probably could have been reluctantly persuaded to agree not to actually flounce out. But more like Trump than Davis? Yes, of course. But it's a bit late for that now.
I've been reading Wolfgang Munchau's Eurointelligence blog with even more interest than normal over the last couple of days. He is an expert on the EU and eurozone so sees things from the EU perspective, but is based at Oxford University, so is fully familiar with the political dynamics in the UK. Munchau has posted prolifically on Brexit recently.
On 26 June he asked Could the Irish border issue trigger a no-deal Brexit? noting that, ahead of Friday's summit, the EU and UK were hardening their positions.
On 27 June, in his column titled Could no-deal Brexit preparations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? he said "It is normally sensible for both sides in a negotiation to make preparations for a no deal. We also think it is perfectly sensible for negotiating partners to say that no deal is better than a bad deal. If you don't say it, you end up with a bad deal. " However, he went on to say "The probability of a no-deal Brexit is rising, however. First of all, industry is creating facts on the ground by reducing investment. The more this goes on, the smaller the value of a transitional agreement for the UK. If the negotiations go all the way until the end of the year, with rising expectations of a no-deal Brexit, it is quite possible that the UK government may conclude that the political cost of an agreement is too high and the benefits from a Brexit transition followed by a customs union are too low, given the changed economic situation" and " This is why a decision by the UK to join the EEA, or a customs union with the EU, has a declining economic value the closer it gets to the Brexit deadline. We are now well into the phase where people have to make preparations, and those preparations create irreversible facts." He concluded "We still think a deal is most likely, but accidents can - and probably will - intrude."
On the same day he wrote about why it is so difficult for the EU to agree post-Brexit defence and security co-operation. The UK is France's key military ally (the countries have been much closer than one might have thought for decades) but the UK has been less engaged in Africa since the Libya adventure and, in the limit, Macron will turn to Germany, even though they don't spend two brass farthings on defence and are always suspect on standing up to Russia.
On 28 June Munchau noted that Gibraltar was becoming a first order Brexit issue, talks having broken down over Spain's insistence on joint management of Gibraltar airport. I'm not sure why the Spanish want this but we know they will try anything to get some hold over Gibraltar. This is making people look at various enclaves in the EU, like Andorra and the German and Italian enclaves in Switzerland, Busingen and Campione, as well as the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Ultimately Munchau thinks that Spain has no interest in exercising its veto because of the interests of the Campo de Gibraltar, the county in Andalusia nearest to Gibraltar. The interest of the region is to keep the border with Gibraltar as open as possible. The closure of the border between 1969 and 1982 seriously hurt both Gibraltar and the Campo, and moreover cemented the Gibraltareans' determination to remain independent from Spain, so nobody on either side wants to see a repeat. But Munchau warns that Spain will seek to leverage the fact that 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU to change the status of Gibraltar. I've long thought that, if it weren't for Mrs May needing the DUP's votes, the northern Irish could get stitched up. Watch out Gibraltar - you don't have any MPs in the Commons!
On the same day Munchau noted that German companies have switched from complacency to panic over Brexit: German companies active in the UK are very advanced in their hard-Brexit preparations. 44% have already shifted their supply chains, while a total of 72% say that they have made intensive preparations. 47% of German companies have postponed planned investment decisions, and one third has stopped investments altogether. The problem is that, once these decisions are taken, they will not be simply reversed even in the case of a soft Brexit. He doesn't expect to see any breakthrough in the Brexit negotiations and thinks that this will be a knife-edge situation even if all goes to plan. "At that point the full economic damage will be done, and the relative costs of a hard Brexit will be correspondingly lower - since the costs will already have been incurred." This could mean "it might become politically too costly for the UK's government to agree or ratify a withdrawal treaty". He goes on to say "We consider a hard Brexit a real possibility now - not a tail risk."
On 29 June Munchau considered the EU's red lines in the Brexit negotiations. He notes what he calls a "solid analysis" by Jean-Claude Piris, formerly head of the EU Council's legal service. He is saying that the idea of a partial customs union for goods only is not going to happen. Such a solution might be justified for a small territory like Northern Ireland, but cannot be used as a general exception for an entire country. But what really clinches the argument is the UK’s request for single market access, based on voluntarily compliance with EU standards. Piris says:
"This hope is based on a misunderstanding of what the SM is. A third state cannot get partial access to the SM under the same conditions as EU or EEA states without being bound by the same constraints. This is not because of bad will on the EU’s part. The EU has no choice but to protect its major success, which binds together all its members: the homogeneity, credibility and legal security of its SM. The European Council will be united in refusing to put the SM’s credibility in jeopardy."
Oo-er... However Niall Ferguson, writing in the Sunday Times about the EU's immigration problem on 17 June, said: "I used to be sceptical of the argument that Brexit was like leaving a sinking ship." Ferguson says he is reassessing his view, because events in Europe are moving in directions that seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. He says that European centrists are deeply confused about immigration. "Many, especially on the centre-left, want both open borders and welfare states. But the evidence suggests that it is hard to be Denmark with a multi-cultural society. The lack of social solidarity makes high levels of taxation and redistribution unsustainable". He notes that a respected author, the son of Bangladeshi immigrants to the US, has argued that America must restrict immigration or risk civil war as rising inequality and racial tension combine. Ferguson hopes that America's melting pot can be salvaged, but he has no such hope for Europe. "No-one who has spent time in Germany since Merkel's great gamble of 2015-16 can honestly believe that a melting pot is in the making there. Anyone who visits Italy today can see that the policies of the past decade - austerity plus open borders - have produced a political meltdown. Fusion may still be an option for the United States. For Europe I fear the process is one of fission - a process potentially so explosive that it may relegate Brexit to the footnotes of history".
This is why the recent EU summit was dominated by migration and not Brexit. Politically Merkel is in deep trouble. Having shafted David Cameron and caused his demise over freedom of movement and then probably caused her own downfall by saying "Wilkommen" to all and sundry the only question is whether she will survive long enough for Theresa May's end to come before her own. Migration is the big issue even though numbers are a fraction of what they were 3 years ago. But the Italians have realised they can get traction on this topic. And it is the big long term issue for the EU. Syrian refugees was a short term blip. Nigeria already has a population about three times that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined. Roughly a third of these people live in poverty. Real poverty not what people call poverty in Europe. The number of babies born in Nigeria in three weeks comfortably outnumbers the total population of Iceland, who they played in the World Cup. This is why Ferguson says you can't have open borders and welfare states. For once the EU has grasped that there is an issue even if, as usual, they can't decide what to do about it.
Ferguson may or may not be right that the EU is bound to split, though I have always thought that the EU is probably an irrelevance in the long term, with commercial and demographic trends as they are in the world. I still believe, as I always have, that the long term prospects for a fully independent UK are good and quite possibly better than being in the EU. However, that's fine for the youngsters: I could be geriatric or pushing up daisies when this promised land is reached. I always feared that there would be a transitional hit, that the exit negotiations would be a total pain and that the EU would not negotiate on the basis of what was "best for everybody". It's why I decided I was too old to vote Leave, as I thought I would only see the economic pain and not so much of the benefit, and why I resent it so much when younger folk blame the old for the Brexit vote.
So I wouldn't have started from here and I didn't have the stomach to go through all this nonsense. But we voted to Leave and turning back now doesn't make any sense as we would definitely be worse off than when we started. So as I've said before (20 October 2017) I want to leave the EU for medical reasons - I'm sick of them (a reference to an Ozzy Osbourne joke/quote).
Over to you Theresa and David - can you actually make a Brexit without breaking too many eggs (or Airbuses?) Are you going to blink or are you going to take it to the line to see if they do? Do ya feel lucky, punk?
Now, where's that Rubik's cube? At least I know that has a solution!
It's tempting to say that solving Rubik's cube or who created the creator are more tempting - and tractable - problems, though I'm sure that at least one of them would take me until after March 2019. But my initial reaction was that there are two choices. The first is to cut and run by applying for immediate membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), whether intending it to be temporary, until some other solution can be created, or permanent. This would keep us in the single market and would appear to head off, for now, the Airbus-BMW issue. Three EFTA members: Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, along with the current EU 28, form the European Economic Area (EEA). These three countries use EFTA's Surveillance Authority for compliance and there is an EFTA Court for dispute resolution. Switzerland operates differently and has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU. It would appear to me that there isn't enough time available to conclude bilateral agreements - after all, that is what we have been trying to do and we are running out of time. So presumably it would have to be Norway style EFTA, not Swiss.
This first option must work, mustn't it? After all, David Owen, my first political hero, was advocating it well over a year ago. But there are some big problems. The "four freedoms" (movement of goods, services, capital and people) apply. And we would have to pay in to the EU budget, while having no influence over it or EU regulations. Apparently Switzerland pays in more per capita than the UK does currently. But we could presumably participate in Euratom (Switzerland does) and the European Defence Agency (Norway does), solving some other yet unresolved issues. And the EEA doesn't cover agriculture and fisheries so we get out of some things, maybe.
My main difficulty with this solution is that it condemns us (because temporary would probably become permanent) to a definitely worse position than we had before the referendum, i.e. in the EU but with our opt-outs. We would have to hope that the EU can resolve the migration issues, which it is singularly failing to do at the moment. And accept that internal EU migration was never the main problem or concern (which, for EU citizens, it wasn't). But if we feel that our position is inevitably worse than the status quo ante and it's a matter of limiting the damage, isn't this a way forward?
But hold on a moment. EFTA members aren't in the EU customs union, so it's not clear to me that this fully solves the Airbus issue (though it might) but it definitely doesn't solve the Ireland border issue! This is why there are customs borders, even if they are light touch, between the EU and both Switzerland and Norway. So I'm not at all clear that this is a viable solution, let alone an attractive one.
The second option is brinkmanship: to press on and try to get the best deal we can. If we assume that "crashing out" with no deal would cause major short term problems we have to rely on the Europeans blinking. After all, some commentators say German industry is worried about this happening and some of the rump EU's 27 states - but not very influential ones - are pressing Brussels not to let it happen. As I've characterised the eurocrats before as self harming psycopaths, for whom their project is more important than the well being of their people, it's not clear to me that they will blink. This is why I think we probably should have tested that by walking away from the negotiations last year.
There is of course a third option: seek to stay in the EU. But I have rejected that as the implicit question was how we save our industry while still exiting the EU.
So what is worrying me somewhat is that I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question.
In last week's Sunday Times Tommy Stubbington wrote a column, "We can fix Brexit" saying that Britain's main five business groups, the CBI, British Chamber of Commerce, Institute of Directors, the manufacturers' organisation the EEF (which it's called because it was once the Engineering Employers' Federation) and the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) were desperately pleading to government for an involvement in the negotiations, saying time is running out and they can fix Brexit. However, reading the column revealed that, while their case for urgency is strong - businesses are starting to implement contingency plans to move activities out of the UK having long since put investment on hold - their ideas on how to make progress sounded pretty thin. The main thrust was Britain has been creative, pragmatism is needed on both sides and now it's the EU's turn. "We have seen major steps to pragmatic compromise on the UK side. This is the time for the EU to respond in kind. The EU has such capability to be creative" said one of the bigwigs. The problem with that is it is just what David Davis has been saying for 9 months now. Why would the EU respond any differently to a bunch of British businessmen?
Indeed, the EU has refused to allow its aviation officials to hold contingency talks with its UK counterparts to keep planes flying if no deal is struck by March. That could, in principle, mean "planes are grounded and wings for half the world's civil aircraft, made by Airbus, could be deemed illegal for use on planes licensed by the EU". (I take this to be hyperbole, surely it would be for planes going into service for the first time, the ones already flying have been licensed. But it would mean Airbus would be laying in to Brussels so that could help).
Stubbington noted that one of the business leaders said that the EU should "seriously consider" May's request for a bespoke deal. But said bigwig also went on to opine "What we are seeking to agree with the EU is a reverse free trade agreement. Nobody on this planet has done that before. Every FTA that has been negotiated has been about getting people to align closer. This is a unique scenario - so we need a unique solution". Great. The EU has said pretty well throughout that it will only offer one of its standard pre-baked options.
For what its worth I think we have to hold our nerve and trust that the Foreign Office and Davis's team have been talking to friendly countries within the rump EU 27 to assess what they will do if the Council of Ministers are presented with no deal. They would have the power to extend the timescales, one way or another. The big problem with brinkmanship is that damage is being done to British business now and it's going to get much worse over the next 8 months. But, of course, that doesn't bother France and Germany an iota; it's what they want, to gain a competitive advantage and, as businessmen are wont to say, steal our lunch.
But the news that a traditional friend of Britain, Mark Rutte the Dutch Prime Minister, responded to Theresa May's plea for close ongoing security co-operation with the EU by saying "Forget cherry-picking, focus on fixing the Irish border" is not encouraging. (Reported yesterday by The Times).
My definitive answer is that I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have agreed the divorce bill without a firm linkage to a bespoke trade deal. And I definitely wouldn't have agreed the ridiculous Irish border fallback, which the UK side seemed to think was hypothetical at the time, because it wasn't going to happen. This isn't hindsight: I said the day after the joint report on phase 1 of the negotiations was published "So the onus remains entirely on us to bring forward ideas to fix the potentially unfixable. The EU side can just refuse to agree to anything they or the Republic don't like. They don't have to do anything other than say "non" and "This gives the EU side the most enormous lever in future negotiations. I'm sure they won't hesitate to use it." (see Reasons to be Cheerful - or Entangled? 8 December 2017). And, as all readers know, I would have considered walking out of the negotiations to pitch them into an early crisis, while there was still time to fix it, last autumn. I accept though that this would have been risky and Theresa May's government might not have survived so I probably could have been reluctantly persuaded to agree not to actually flounce out. But more like Trump than Davis? Yes, of course. But it's a bit late for that now.
I've been reading Wolfgang Munchau's Eurointelligence blog with even more interest than normal over the last couple of days. He is an expert on the EU and eurozone so sees things from the EU perspective, but is based at Oxford University, so is fully familiar with the political dynamics in the UK. Munchau has posted prolifically on Brexit recently.
On 26 June he asked Could the Irish border issue trigger a no-deal Brexit? noting that, ahead of Friday's summit, the EU and UK were hardening their positions.
On 27 June, in his column titled Could no-deal Brexit preparations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? he said "It is normally sensible for both sides in a negotiation to make preparations for a no deal. We also think it is perfectly sensible for negotiating partners to say that no deal is better than a bad deal. If you don't say it, you end up with a bad deal. " However, he went on to say "The probability of a no-deal Brexit is rising, however. First of all, industry is creating facts on the ground by reducing investment. The more this goes on, the smaller the value of a transitional agreement for the UK. If the negotiations go all the way until the end of the year, with rising expectations of a no-deal Brexit, it is quite possible that the UK government may conclude that the political cost of an agreement is too high and the benefits from a Brexit transition followed by a customs union are too low, given the changed economic situation" and " This is why a decision by the UK to join the EEA, or a customs union with the EU, has a declining economic value the closer it gets to the Brexit deadline. We are now well into the phase where people have to make preparations, and those preparations create irreversible facts." He concluded "We still think a deal is most likely, but accidents can - and probably will - intrude."
On the same day he wrote about why it is so difficult for the EU to agree post-Brexit defence and security co-operation. The UK is France's key military ally (the countries have been much closer than one might have thought for decades) but the UK has been less engaged in Africa since the Libya adventure and, in the limit, Macron will turn to Germany, even though they don't spend two brass farthings on defence and are always suspect on standing up to Russia.
On 28 June Munchau noted that Gibraltar was becoming a first order Brexit issue, talks having broken down over Spain's insistence on joint management of Gibraltar airport. I'm not sure why the Spanish want this but we know they will try anything to get some hold over Gibraltar. This is making people look at various enclaves in the EU, like Andorra and the German and Italian enclaves in Switzerland, Busingen and Campione, as well as the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Ultimately Munchau thinks that Spain has no interest in exercising its veto because of the interests of the Campo de Gibraltar, the county in Andalusia nearest to Gibraltar. The interest of the region is to keep the border with Gibraltar as open as possible. The closure of the border between 1969 and 1982 seriously hurt both Gibraltar and the Campo, and moreover cemented the Gibraltareans' determination to remain independent from Spain, so nobody on either side wants to see a repeat. But Munchau warns that Spain will seek to leverage the fact that 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU to change the status of Gibraltar. I've long thought that, if it weren't for Mrs May needing the DUP's votes, the northern Irish could get stitched up. Watch out Gibraltar - you don't have any MPs in the Commons!
On the same day Munchau noted that German companies have switched from complacency to panic over Brexit: German companies active in the UK are very advanced in their hard-Brexit preparations. 44% have already shifted their supply chains, while a total of 72% say that they have made intensive preparations. 47% of German companies have postponed planned investment decisions, and one third has stopped investments altogether. The problem is that, once these decisions are taken, they will not be simply reversed even in the case of a soft Brexit. He doesn't expect to see any breakthrough in the Brexit negotiations and thinks that this will be a knife-edge situation even if all goes to plan. "At that point the full economic damage will be done, and the relative costs of a hard Brexit will be correspondingly lower - since the costs will already have been incurred." This could mean "it might become politically too costly for the UK's government to agree or ratify a withdrawal treaty". He goes on to say "We consider a hard Brexit a real possibility now - not a tail risk."
On 29 June Munchau considered the EU's red lines in the Brexit negotiations. He notes what he calls a "solid analysis" by Jean-Claude Piris, formerly head of the EU Council's legal service. He is saying that the idea of a partial customs union for goods only is not going to happen. Such a solution might be justified for a small territory like Northern Ireland, but cannot be used as a general exception for an entire country. But what really clinches the argument is the UK’s request for single market access, based on voluntarily compliance with EU standards. Piris says:
"This hope is based on a misunderstanding of what the SM is. A third state cannot get partial access to the SM under the same conditions as EU or EEA states without being bound by the same constraints. This is not because of bad will on the EU’s part. The EU has no choice but to protect its major success, which binds together all its members: the homogeneity, credibility and legal security of its SM. The European Council will be united in refusing to put the SM’s credibility in jeopardy."
So the EU would not be able to accept freedom of movement for goods and capital but not for people. The four freedoms come as a package, something that seems basically incomprehensible to many commentators in the UK. Piris notes that exactly the same arguments would also apply to a more limited agreement relating to goods only. This leaves only a Canada-style trade agreement, with no customs union or single market membership, but with a tariff-free customs arrangement and a joint dispute-settlement procedure. The question is where this will leave Northern Ireland. The implication is that there isn't an answer, without a conventional border. So, unless something gives, Munchau says this explains why close observers of the process are becoming increasingly pessimistic.
This is why the recent EU summit was dominated by migration and not Brexit. Politically Merkel is in deep trouble. Having shafted David Cameron and caused his demise over freedom of movement and then probably caused her own downfall by saying "Wilkommen" to all and sundry the only question is whether she will survive long enough for Theresa May's end to come before her own. Migration is the big issue even though numbers are a fraction of what they were 3 years ago. But the Italians have realised they can get traction on this topic. And it is the big long term issue for the EU. Syrian refugees was a short term blip. Nigeria already has a population about three times that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined. Roughly a third of these people live in poverty. Real poverty not what people call poverty in Europe. The number of babies born in Nigeria in three weeks comfortably outnumbers the total population of Iceland, who they played in the World Cup. This is why Ferguson says you can't have open borders and welfare states. For once the EU has grasped that there is an issue even if, as usual, they can't decide what to do about it.
Ferguson may or may not be right that the EU is bound to split, though I have always thought that the EU is probably an irrelevance in the long term, with commercial and demographic trends as they are in the world. I still believe, as I always have, that the long term prospects for a fully independent UK are good and quite possibly better than being in the EU. However, that's fine for the youngsters: I could be geriatric or pushing up daisies when this promised land is reached. I always feared that there would be a transitional hit, that the exit negotiations would be a total pain and that the EU would not negotiate on the basis of what was "best for everybody". It's why I decided I was too old to vote Leave, as I thought I would only see the economic pain and not so much of the benefit, and why I resent it so much when younger folk blame the old for the Brexit vote.
So I wouldn't have started from here and I didn't have the stomach to go through all this nonsense. But we voted to Leave and turning back now doesn't make any sense as we would definitely be worse off than when we started. So as I've said before (20 October 2017) I want to leave the EU for medical reasons - I'm sick of them (a reference to an Ozzy Osbourne joke/quote).
Over to you Theresa and David - can you actually make a Brexit without breaking too many eggs (or Airbuses?) Are you going to blink or are you going to take it to the line to see if they do? Do ya feel lucky, punk?
Now, where's that Rubik's cube? At least I know that has a solution!
Friday, 29 June 2018
The German car industry is rotten but Trump's tariffs could influence Brexit
I missed the story ten days ago that the Chief Executive of Audi had not only been arrested as the emissions scandal unfolds, but had been detained to prevent him obstructing the investigation*. That shows how rotten the culture in the senior management of the German car industry is - the German courts cannot trust them to play straight. Wow. Wolfgang Munchau says the German car industry is now tarnished with the reputation of a criminal racket**. He also says that President Trump's proposed tariffs of 20-25% on EU and Chinese cars "would pretty much destroy the business of importing cars from EU/China". Munchau goes on to say that this could have a profound impact on the Brexit discussions. "The UK is the largest export market for German car makers, followed by the US. If the US imposed tariffs, and if the Brexit talks were to collapse, the German auto industry would have to face crippling tariffs in three of its four largest export markets. The EU clearly has no interest in a hard Brexit in this situation."***
The fact that we buy a lot of Mercs, Beemers, Audis and VWs from this bunch of crooks could yet be material to Brexit, if only because of a renegade loose cannon of an American president. Wheels within wheels.....
*Audi chief arrested in Germany over diesel scandal, The Guardian 18 June 2018
** What the incarceration of the Audi chief implies, Eurointelligence 19 June 2018. Munchau's withering commentary is reproduced below
*** Trump's car tariff to come early, Eurointelligence, 25 June 2018
If you try to find these items on Eurointeilligence you may get directed to the subscription edition: click the link at the top of the right hand column for the shorter public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing to see the free edition
"The jailing without bail of Rupert Stadler, Audi's chief, constitutes an astonishing escalation of the emissions scandal. It has now become clear that Audi was the centre of the diesel emissions scandal within the VW group, though the scandal was clearly not confined to that company. What has turned a damaging scandal into a industry-wide calamity is not the original act, bad as it was, but the way the protagonists have subsequently acted. The VW board behaves like an old-fashioned corporatist clique under attack. The strategy has been to obfuscate, to deny, to keep the dirt under the carpet. The German car industry is now tarnished with the reputation of a criminal racket. That would not have been an inevitable consequences of the crisis, if it had been professionally handled. But this should not be a surprise. If you are over-reliant on one industry, and on one company in particular, you are prone to becoming defensive when under attack." (Wolfgang Munchau, source at **)
The fact that we buy a lot of Mercs, Beemers, Audis and VWs from this bunch of crooks could yet be material to Brexit, if only because of a renegade loose cannon of an American president. Wheels within wheels.....
*Audi chief arrested in Germany over diesel scandal, The Guardian 18 June 2018
** What the incarceration of the Audi chief implies, Eurointelligence 19 June 2018. Munchau's withering commentary is reproduced below
*** Trump's car tariff to come early, Eurointelligence, 25 June 2018
If you try to find these items on Eurointeilligence you may get directed to the subscription edition: click the link at the top of the right hand column for the shorter public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing to see the free edition
"The jailing without bail of Rupert Stadler, Audi's chief, constitutes an astonishing escalation of the emissions scandal. It has now become clear that Audi was the centre of the diesel emissions scandal within the VW group, though the scandal was clearly not confined to that company. What has turned a damaging scandal into a industry-wide calamity is not the original act, bad as it was, but the way the protagonists have subsequently acted. The VW board behaves like an old-fashioned corporatist clique under attack. The strategy has been to obfuscate, to deny, to keep the dirt under the carpet. The German car industry is now tarnished with the reputation of a criminal racket. That would not have been an inevitable consequences of the crisis, if it had been professionally handled. But this should not be a surprise. If you are over-reliant on one industry, and on one company in particular, you are prone to becoming defensive when under attack." (Wolfgang Munchau, source at **)
Sunday, 24 June 2018
Pushing high
Panama may only have been League 2 standard but England's performance in achieving their best ever World Cup result in their second group game was excellent. I've been a supporter of Gareth Southgate as England manager since Allardyce was sacked (see Good Luck Nord, 1 December 2016). I was very impressed with his feet on the ground interview after the game, saying the start and end weren't good and implying the second half was a bit weak but that overall he was very pleased with the team's performance. At last, an intelligent England manager!
Yes, there's a reliance on set plays, but no team would relish playing England at the moment, though the better teams will feel they can force defensive errors. John Stones played well but hit one pass to no-one in particular and Harry McGuire lost possession with a couple of lackadaisical flicks in the middle of the pitch which would have driven any team manager I played for as a centre half apopleptic if any of his defenders had attempted them.
But the only really worrying thing was the manner in which they conceded the goal. I've written before about the tendency for most Premier League teams to defend free kicks with their defensive line too high up the pitch. The World Cup has revealed that this is a more widespread failing - it's the way most countries seem to do it. You could see clearly from the stripes mown on the pitch that England, using one such stripe, set their defensive line 24 yards from their goal for a free kick about 36 yards out towards their right touchline. The yawning gap between Pickford and his defence was an invitation to put the ball on the penalty spot for the onrushing attackers. It didn't demand a high skill level to take the free kick - in my playing days I would have fancied it with my 'wrong' foot. Had England lined up five yards deeper - so still just outside their penalty area reducing the risk of a penalty - the precision needed would have been much higher. Even more so if the man standing in front of the free kick taker had dropped back level with this deeper defensive line: a low delivery would not have got past the first defender, forcing the ball to be put in the air. Engand compounded the problem by not actually holding their line - three defenders were behind the main line when the kick was taken, two of which looked as if they played the goalscorer was onside. Given that the defensive co-ordinator, probably one of the centre backs, had picked a visible line on the pitch that was pretty amateurish.
Rio Ferdinand commented after the game that he thought they should have lined up "a bit deeper", so it's not just me saying it.
This failing could easily be fixed but I fear it won't be as, on this practice at least, Southgate and his coaches are going with the crowd. Come on, Gareth. Put your centre back's brain back in for a minute and get it sorted. Get them to line up at the point where a ball over their heads is most likely the keeper's. You know it makes sense, especially since we are strong in the air.
I could make myself available for a coaching session if it would help......
Yes, there's a reliance on set plays, but no team would relish playing England at the moment, though the better teams will feel they can force defensive errors. John Stones played well but hit one pass to no-one in particular and Harry McGuire lost possession with a couple of lackadaisical flicks in the middle of the pitch which would have driven any team manager I played for as a centre half apopleptic if any of his defenders had attempted them.
But the only really worrying thing was the manner in which they conceded the goal. I've written before about the tendency for most Premier League teams to defend free kicks with their defensive line too high up the pitch. The World Cup has revealed that this is a more widespread failing - it's the way most countries seem to do it. You could see clearly from the stripes mown on the pitch that England, using one such stripe, set their defensive line 24 yards from their goal for a free kick about 36 yards out towards their right touchline. The yawning gap between Pickford and his defence was an invitation to put the ball on the penalty spot for the onrushing attackers. It didn't demand a high skill level to take the free kick - in my playing days I would have fancied it with my 'wrong' foot. Had England lined up five yards deeper - so still just outside their penalty area reducing the risk of a penalty - the precision needed would have been much higher. Even more so if the man standing in front of the free kick taker had dropped back level with this deeper defensive line: a low delivery would not have got past the first defender, forcing the ball to be put in the air. Engand compounded the problem by not actually holding their line - three defenders were behind the main line when the kick was taken, two of which looked as if they played the goalscorer was onside. Given that the defensive co-ordinator, probably one of the centre backs, had picked a visible line on the pitch that was pretty amateurish.
Rio Ferdinand commented after the game that he thought they should have lined up "a bit deeper", so it's not just me saying it.
This failing could easily be fixed but I fear it won't be as, on this practice at least, Southgate and his coaches are going with the crowd. Come on, Gareth. Put your centre back's brain back in for a minute and get it sorted. Get them to line up at the point where a ball over their heads is most likely the keeper's. You know it makes sense, especially since we are strong in the air.
I could make myself available for a coaching session if it would help......
Friday, 22 June 2018
Best Musicians I've Seen - 4.5 Jimmy Page
I've already mentioned Rolling Stone magazine's top 100 guitarists. RS is, of course, an American publication and so it is remarkable that three of the top five guitarists had their careers launched, as Wikipedia puts it, in a moderately successful British band from the sixties - the Yardbirds. While Eric Clapton had profile from his time in John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page came to prominence via a band that mixed top 10 pop songs (For Your Love, Heart Full of Soul, Evil Hearted You) with progressively more adventurous guitar breaks.
I've not seen Clapton or Beck live, though Clapton's guitar work in Cream was exceptional and the wacky guitar break in Beck's Hi Ho Silver Lining is one of my favourites in a pop song. Apparently, Beck plays entirely by ear, never learned how to read music and claimed not even to know what key he was playing in when asked by band mates. I have, however, seen Jimmy Page play twice. Page was also largely self taught, picking up a guitar that had been left behind at a house his family moved into when he was 12 and starting to experiment. He must have been a natural as by 13 he appeared in a tv talent competition. Invited to join a band he contracted glandular fever and had to stop touring. Hanging around the Marquee club he played with Clapton and Beck and got occasional gigs as a stand in guitarist. Getting an invitation to help out at a recording session led to him becoming a regular session musician for Decca records, including playing on the Jet Harris hit Diamonds and subsequently songs as diverse as The Who's I Can't Explain (which Townshend is touchy about), the Rolling Stones Heart of Stone, Baby Please Don't Go and Gloria by Them (featuring Van Morrison) and, more prosaically, Petula Clark's Downtown. When Clapton left the Yardbirds he recommended Page, who turned down the gig because he was still wary of touring - and earning steady money from sessions, though Page has denied that was a factor*. He recommended they go for Beck instead, which they did. But eventually he tired of sessions when his label moved to making what Page called muzak. A week after Page quit sessions the Yardbirds bass player left and Page got a call to fill in. Soon he was playing lead alongside Beck until he left also left.
By the time the Yardbirds folded in 1968, Page had made many of the contacts he needed to start his own band, Led Zeppelin. Peter Grant, Zeppelin's manager, had been the Yardbirds' US tour manager. John Paul Jones, the Zeppelin bass player, had filled in with the Yardbirds. And Page had honed his technique playing sessions and touring with the Yardbirds. He told Rolling Stone magazine "I knew instinctively what the music should be doing. It's what I learned touring with The Yardbirds." Indeed, the band he put together appeared as The New Yardbirds until a name was chosen. Famously, when told the name was to be Led Zeppelin, Annie Nightingale said something like "you won't be successful with a name like that". Six American number one selling albums followed....
I saw was lucky enough to see Page with Led Zeppelin at Manchester University in 1971. They were already a huge band but this was just before the era of stadium gigs. So it was a fairly intimate gig in what was then known as the Main Debating Hall, now called "Academy 2". Led Zep were warming up to tour what would be the "Four Symbols" album, aka Led Zeppelin IV. As I have previously mentioned, there was less inhibition in those days about bootleg recordings and I can distinctly recall them playing Going To California and, of course, Stairway To Heaven, before they were released. But it was the songs from their first album, in particular Since I've Been Loving You and Dazed and Confused, with Page using a violin bow on his guitar strings, that were the most memorable. That and the bunch of young females standing just behind us who I felt sure were going to wet themselves every time Robert Plant opened his mouth, which did get a bit wearing.
Moving on - Page has been a buddy of Roy Harper since the 1960s and has played on ten Harper tracks including a jointly billed album, Harper and Page's Whatever Happened to Jugula, made in 1984. The two musicians played many gigs as an acoustic duo, some of them billed anonymously. I've had a memorable first hand report of one such gig, which I'll keep for another occasion. Page has appeared with Harper sporadically since and I saw one such gig, Roy's 70th birthday event at the Royal Festival Hall in November 2011. Page came on to duet with Harper on The Same Old Rock, one of Harper's most significant songs, from his 1970 masterpiece album Stormcock, one of their earliest recorded collaborations. The song ends with an extended acoustic guitar duet which I still find breathtaking, having listened to it endlessly since I was a student. I say duet, but it is, of course, Harper backing Page. Fortunately 40 years on Jimmy's dexterity had not been too dulled by all the drugs and he nailed it.
It seems to me that, back in the day, many of the most successful musicians served an apprenticeship of some duration before they found fame. Page has said on numerous occasions that his sessions and then touring experience with the Yardbirds was the making of him. He would play three sessions a day, six days a week, never knowing what he would be playing in advance and having to hit the notes as soon as he was counted in.
And, as far as anyone having that much success can do, he seems to have remained as modest as when he first met Roy Harper. Harper has recounted that, when playing at a festival in the late 1960s, a quiet chap "with trousers that were too short for him" queued up to ask for an autograph, shuffling off without saying a word. It was only later that Harper realised the chap with the trouser issue was Jimmy Page of the new group Led Zeppelin, who were also on the bill. Their subsequent long friendship led to recording and touring together in Britain and the States and the tribute track, Hats Off To Harper, on Led Zeppelin III.
There have been many reports about Page's spat with his neighbour in London. But then that is Robbie Williams, over the latter's plans for an iceberg style underground house extension next door to Page's grade 1 listed house, the Tower House in Melbury Road, Holland Park built by the architect and designer William Burges which is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Page has owned and lived in it since 1972. Apparently Page, mindful of the delicate plasterwork, only ever plays the acoustic guitar at home and is concerned about vibration damage during excavation. Anyone who dislikes Williams has good taste as far as I'm concerned but, more importantly, unlike some top guitarists Page is a master of both main forms of his instrument.
So, whether or not he's a decent bloke, Jimmy Page is undoubtedly a fine guitarist and he's on my shortlist.
* On the way to Led Zeppelin: Jimmy Page on the Yardbirds years, Rolling Stone 27 Nov 2012
Also Wikipedia and stuff I've picked up all over the place, including being there.
I've not seen Clapton or Beck live, though Clapton's guitar work in Cream was exceptional and the wacky guitar break in Beck's Hi Ho Silver Lining is one of my favourites in a pop song. Apparently, Beck plays entirely by ear, never learned how to read music and claimed not even to know what key he was playing in when asked by band mates. I have, however, seen Jimmy Page play twice. Page was also largely self taught, picking up a guitar that had been left behind at a house his family moved into when he was 12 and starting to experiment. He must have been a natural as by 13 he appeared in a tv talent competition. Invited to join a band he contracted glandular fever and had to stop touring. Hanging around the Marquee club he played with Clapton and Beck and got occasional gigs as a stand in guitarist. Getting an invitation to help out at a recording session led to him becoming a regular session musician for Decca records, including playing on the Jet Harris hit Diamonds and subsequently songs as diverse as The Who's I Can't Explain (which Townshend is touchy about), the Rolling Stones Heart of Stone, Baby Please Don't Go and Gloria by Them (featuring Van Morrison) and, more prosaically, Petula Clark's Downtown. When Clapton left the Yardbirds he recommended Page, who turned down the gig because he was still wary of touring - and earning steady money from sessions, though Page has denied that was a factor*. He recommended they go for Beck instead, which they did. But eventually he tired of sessions when his label moved to making what Page called muzak. A week after Page quit sessions the Yardbirds bass player left and Page got a call to fill in. Soon he was playing lead alongside Beck until he left also left.
By the time the Yardbirds folded in 1968, Page had made many of the contacts he needed to start his own band, Led Zeppelin. Peter Grant, Zeppelin's manager, had been the Yardbirds' US tour manager. John Paul Jones, the Zeppelin bass player, had filled in with the Yardbirds. And Page had honed his technique playing sessions and touring with the Yardbirds. He told Rolling Stone magazine "I knew instinctively what the music should be doing. It's what I learned touring with The Yardbirds." Indeed, the band he put together appeared as The New Yardbirds until a name was chosen. Famously, when told the name was to be Led Zeppelin, Annie Nightingale said something like "you won't be successful with a name like that". Six American number one selling albums followed....
I saw was lucky enough to see Page with Led Zeppelin at Manchester University in 1971. They were already a huge band but this was just before the era of stadium gigs. So it was a fairly intimate gig in what was then known as the Main Debating Hall, now called "Academy 2". Led Zep were warming up to tour what would be the "Four Symbols" album, aka Led Zeppelin IV. As I have previously mentioned, there was less inhibition in those days about bootleg recordings and I can distinctly recall them playing Going To California and, of course, Stairway To Heaven, before they were released. But it was the songs from their first album, in particular Since I've Been Loving You and Dazed and Confused, with Page using a violin bow on his guitar strings, that were the most memorable. That and the bunch of young females standing just behind us who I felt sure were going to wet themselves every time Robert Plant opened his mouth, which did get a bit wearing.
Moving on - Page has been a buddy of Roy Harper since the 1960s and has played on ten Harper tracks including a jointly billed album, Harper and Page's Whatever Happened to Jugula, made in 1984. The two musicians played many gigs as an acoustic duo, some of them billed anonymously. I've had a memorable first hand report of one such gig, which I'll keep for another occasion. Page has appeared with Harper sporadically since and I saw one such gig, Roy's 70th birthday event at the Royal Festival Hall in November 2011. Page came on to duet with Harper on The Same Old Rock, one of Harper's most significant songs, from his 1970 masterpiece album Stormcock, one of their earliest recorded collaborations. The song ends with an extended acoustic guitar duet which I still find breathtaking, having listened to it endlessly since I was a student. I say duet, but it is, of course, Harper backing Page. Fortunately 40 years on Jimmy's dexterity had not been too dulled by all the drugs and he nailed it.
It seems to me that, back in the day, many of the most successful musicians served an apprenticeship of some duration before they found fame. Page has said on numerous occasions that his sessions and then touring experience with the Yardbirds was the making of him. He would play three sessions a day, six days a week, never knowing what he would be playing in advance and having to hit the notes as soon as he was counted in.
And, as far as anyone having that much success can do, he seems to have remained as modest as when he first met Roy Harper. Harper has recounted that, when playing at a festival in the late 1960s, a quiet chap "with trousers that were too short for him" queued up to ask for an autograph, shuffling off without saying a word. It was only later that Harper realised the chap with the trouser issue was Jimmy Page of the new group Led Zeppelin, who were also on the bill. Their subsequent long friendship led to recording and touring together in Britain and the States and the tribute track, Hats Off To Harper, on Led Zeppelin III.
There have been many reports about Page's spat with his neighbour in London. But then that is Robbie Williams, over the latter's plans for an iceberg style underground house extension next door to Page's grade 1 listed house, the Tower House in Melbury Road, Holland Park built by the architect and designer William Burges which is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Page has owned and lived in it since 1972. Apparently Page, mindful of the delicate plasterwork, only ever plays the acoustic guitar at home and is concerned about vibration damage during excavation. Anyone who dislikes Williams has good taste as far as I'm concerned but, more importantly, unlike some top guitarists Page is a master of both main forms of his instrument.
So, whether or not he's a decent bloke, Jimmy Page is undoubtedly a fine guitarist and he's on my shortlist.
* On the way to Led Zeppelin: Jimmy Page on the Yardbirds years, Rolling Stone 27 Nov 2012
Also Wikipedia and stuff I've picked up all over the place, including being there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)