Owen Jones tweets:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The quote by WB Yeats “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity” is so true, bearing in mind where we find
ourselves at the moment. I have just been watching Civilisation on BBC
iPlayer. Never seen it before. I must admit I was very impressed
particularly the last episode. It was filmed in 1969 and its call to
humanism and education and tolerance almost seemed as though they were
from a totally different time.
My innate optimism says this is but a blip in the road but my heart
thinks it is something much worse.
Jay Rosen tweets:
Kevin Marks tweets:
The Brexit camp love to incoherently invoke World War 2 and the Blitz. The counterpoint to that is Orwell, writing while being bombed of how to build a better country after the war: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/. Do read it
“An army of unemployed led by millionaires quoting the Sermon on the Mount – that is our danger. But it cannot arise when we have once introduced a reasonable degree of social justice.”
“England has got to be true to herself. She is not being true to herself while the refugees who have sought our shores are penned up in concentration camps, and company directors work out subtle schemes to dodge their Excess Profits Tax.”
Re-reading this, it is striking how much of contemporary rhetoric still draws from it. “But it is precisely the idea of human equality – the “Jewish” or “Judæo-Christian” idea of equality – that Hitler came into the world to destroy.”
“The thought of a world in which black men would be as good as white men and Jews treated as human beings brings him the same horror and despair as the thought of endless slavery brings to us.”
Ashley Cowburn tweets:
“I’m a details guy,” Dominic Raab tells Andrew Marr
Journalists conducting interviews on the trade side of Brexit face a huge challenge. The field is packed with confident but utterly clueless chancers who prey on the technical nature of the subject to spout nonsense laden with enough impressive sounding terminology to appear credible.
The interviewer rarely feels confident enough with trade policy’s intricacies to really challenge the verbal onslaught they’re experiencing and thus inadvertently add credibility to what is objectively nonsense. Inspired by a twitter exchange, I wanted to create an evolving guide to help.
“In a No-Deal, Article XXIV of the WTO would allow us to ‘freeze tariffs’ with the EU and keep things the way they are for two to ten years.”
Suggested follow ups:
- “Invoking Article XXIV requires the EU’s consent, which it has explicitly ruled out. Are they lying or bluffing?”
- “Are you aware elimination of tariffs under Article XXIV would actually raise the paperwork requirements on British exporters beyond even just trading on WTO terms alone?”
- “What would eliminating tariffs via Article XXIV instead of a transition period do for UK services firms?”
Recommended reading for all, but especially BBC, journalists.
Dmitry Grozoubinski tweets:
1/ This is obviously awful, but I’m not sure everyone realizes why. She asks: “Why is everyone focused on the EU, why not the rest of the world?” I think she thinks a WORLD Trade Organisation Brexit makes exporting to the rest of the WORLD easier. In 2019. Fuck.
2/ Let me be absolutely unequivocal: a WTO Brexit itself does NOTHING for the UK’s ability to export anything to anyone (except temporarily tank the pound).
Not. One. Thing.
3/ A WTO Brexit pulls the UK out of the most advanced trade agreement in history and dozens of other trade agreements.
The UK was trading with the EU and others on one set of rules, it will now be trading on another, far shittier set. That is fact. Not in dispute.
4/ In exchange (on trade), the UK gets the promise of unspecified improvements in unspecified conditions under which it trades unspecified wares with unspecified ‘world’ partners which it will achieve in unspecified trade negotiations in exchange for unspecified concessions.
5/ As soon as you push any of these ‘World Trade’ proponents to get specific you discover their ideas are:
- a) Daydreams (services access to the US)
- b) Unpopular (let US health providers sell into the NHS)
- c) Unpopular Daydreams (full bilateral tariff elimination with China)
6/ People keep asking, “does anyone trade with the EU on WTO terms?” which is a bit like asking the woman smashing her Ferrari with a sledgehammer if she knows of anyone who walks to work.
Who cares if someone trades with the EU on WTO terms alone?
The UK sure doesn’t.
7/ These people are able to consistently bamboozle the public by juxtaposing trade with the EU with the new and exciting prospect of trading with the world as if:
- a) Brexit does anything for the latter;
- b) The UK isn’t trading globally now;
- c) One can compensate for the other.
8/ If anything, a WTO Brexit degrades the UK’s competitiveness globally by making it harder and more expensive for UK businesses to:
- a) Source parts from the EU;
- b) Attract EU human resources;
- c) Serve as a beachhead into the EU for 3rd countries.
9/ It’s almost June 2019.
The country has been discussing these issues for almost two years.
How is the conversation so fundamentally lacking in seriousness?
I’m just really tired you guys.
Via Richard Murphy, Jonathan Pie: