Author: Desp(e)rat(e) measures
The Fox – Frederick Forsyth
17-4-19
Dear Partners in thought,
While Brexit reaches another climax I thought we might as well stay away from it and take refuge in the world of fiction…
I would like to tell you about “The Fox” the latest spy-flavoured action novel by Frederick Forsyth, whom to my age group was with Jack Higgins what was John Le Carré may have been for the slightly older ones, that is a great entertainer and plotter with a limpid style of great stories that took you to exotic places in the midst of real life current affairs backgrounds. Those who like FF will remember the “Day of the Jackal” and the de Gaulle assassination plot (with another Fox on screen), the “Odessa file”, “the Dogs of War”, “The Fourth Protocol”, all made into a movie and a succession of other novels which somewhat peaked with Russian-flavoured “Icon” already years ago. Over recent years and since “The Veteran” in 2001 (time flies!), FF slowed down his production which nevertheless looks bigger than his 18 books, never going back to his heydays. FF was different as he was as much a novelist as he was an historian and one of war, making me remember the good times I spent listening to him in the late eighties when his military history show was on PBS and I was starting my professional career in New York City. He had the distinguished air of an Oxford Don combined with that of the operator of things displayed in his books and knew through his grave voice how to captivate an audience in the way he did so well in print. It is hard to believe that FF is now 80 and that his wife is very strict about his not traveling to hot world spots for inspiration. I can also remember when he played dead for a couple of years having been defrauded by personal friend turned con-man Roger Levitt in the mid-1990s in London, something I always found hard to believe. The only sad part about his life, at least for me, was his passion for total British sovereignty and hatred of the EC/EU project and management which drove him to be an early supporter of UKIP when Jimmy Goldsmith founded it, before the Nigel Farage times and when it was deemed to be lunacy (well, again like today it seems bit let’s stay focused).
Like with younger David Ignatius (he is 68), FF jumps into the new era of intelligence and its electronic forms, not going into quantum computing but sticking to cyber warfare, which is advanced enough to the veteran spy writer (and I). He takes us into a massive cyber hack perpetrated against Fort Meade’s NSA though nothing was “stolen” prompting a rapid and equally massive hunt assisted with the British GCHQ (Government Communications HQ) and a joint-Navy Seal-SAS contingent in the English countryside where the target is finally identified and secured. Then they all find a family of four with a teenager with Asperger’s syndrome who simply had to penetrate the impregnable defences at the heart of the NSA just to show them he could and indirectly pointing their flaws. I will not go into the plot but as you would imagine the boy may not be extradited to face American judicial retribution and will stay in London working for “Cheltenham” and sharing his findings with the very target of his earlier and unique achievements.
FF is especially interesting to read as he is very well “connected” (read he has friends in British and likely US intelligence), knowing locations and operational ways as if he had like John Le Carré once worked in those shadowy spheres. His stories are peppered with real names of leaders and their top servants (like Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the SIS or MI6) whose deputy (likely a fictional character) works closely with PM Marjory Graham, who happened to have been Home Secretary before David Cameron resigned in June 2016 (no mention of the fateful Referendum). One wonders why FF does not call her Theresa as her US counterpart is clearly the one with the blond coiffe who seems acting reasonably if not rationally (I suspect FF likes Donald but does not stress it, preferring depicting him as the leader we all would want). The story looks always real with the hideouts coming back from the Cold War where East Block agents were sheltered and interrogated and the London clubs serve as useful locations for low key meetings. FF has a very insightful take on the post 9-11 era and the unleashing of dangerous changes in the Middle East taking the opportunity to lambast Tony Blair and his “Dodgy Dossier” about weapons of mass destruction used to back and follow the US in their new crusade and democracy export. He has a great take on new Russia, the Putin regime and its power plays, the quality of which would be on a par with the most leading Kremlinologists of the day illustrated by his focus on the use of newfound nationalistic pride and orthodox religion as key drivers. Even the driving around DC looks as if we would be there which is natural for such an old Western Alliance chap.
The story takes place after the Salisbury Skrypal affair when and where a former Russian intelligence agent turned British MI6 enabler and his daughter came close to dying from the Novichock nerve agent “assumed” to have been engineered by the Russian services. The Brits take advantage of their cyber genius “catch” to launch an humiliating response against the old foe which will trigger an immediate counter-response at the height of Russian power. Interestingly FF offers some thoughts as to the Salisbury attack that may have been out of control and resulted in a massive Cold War-like diplomatic row with dozens of Russian diplomats (all SVR-linked we are told) being sent back in a loss-loss scenario for Russia. This side comment implies that Russia may not be as well organised or led as one would believe, something that may ring true when reading about the arrest in mid-February of a prominent Western financier and 25 year veteran of investing in Russia (well accepted by the power and business circles) on “strange” grounds closer to partners’ rivalry than anything else, prompting Putin to reassure foreign investors that investing in Russia is sound and that some of the people running those kinds of cases may not be all competent (in itself an amazing admission). Without going into details and letting you discover the full story, FF manages a rather entertaining succession of events that have nothing to do with the usual spies exchanging bons mots at cocktail parties while looking for Kompromat. We see the unavoidable SAS again in action (FF is always a fan) and the Russian Night Wolves bikers (far more dangerous than the Hell’s Angels we are told) going head to head, some to terminate and the others to protect in what is more akin to hot than cold war exchanges in the nights of the English countryside. If anything one senses that FF wants to points out throughout the novel that Russia has gradually become more daring in its goals and aggressive in its means in the conduct of its active intelligence operations, new and old style – something that Salisbury would seem to confirm if we accept the last explanation standing. FF develop the story with a succession of hacks and reprisals lining up successfully Iran, Israel and in a multiple set of scenarios, the Hermit Kingdom going as far as giving us a final development that is not yet certain but could well happen one day – and I shall keep under the requisite wraps. As for dealings with Russia, the descriptions of the other protagonists is very solid giving the novel a strong reality flavour and underlining FF’s mastery at creating one of the best “fictional non-fiction” spy action novels around.
You will enjoy “The Fox” that reads fast like an enjoyable James Patterson crime novel with the real stuff on top.
Warmest regards,
Serge
On the current tech listings, irrationality and avoiding the road to systems failure…
15-4-19
Dear Partners in thought,
We read and hear more and more about well-known tech companies such as Lyft, Uber, Pinterest, Slack, Airbnb and others raising billions of dollars via Initial Public Offerings while most have never been profitable. In other words, as already stated in recent days, making them philanthropic organisations that subsidise their services, like transportation, to millions of users while large institutional investors are strangely happy to fund them as if there was no tomorrow on the basis of “first scaler advantage” that has replaced “first mover advantage”. Uber founded in 2009 never made a profit in a decade and reported a loss of USD 1.8bn last year while now raising USD 10bn and contemplating a stock market valuation of USD 120bn. By doing so “we” are leaving sound financial principles aside and entering the world of Las Vegas or faith-based betting however the brand and its appeal involved. There is something wrong with this even if many stakeholders enjoy the game and indeed win big from it at times.
Having worked with start-ups and Venture Capital and Private Equity funds for years I am fully aware of the benefits of backing start-ups and indeed valuing them through many investments rounds at levels that are not linked to their profitability, when indeed they can show some. This is one thing and arguably the only way to get those young companies to grow. It is another to tap the public markets with its many institutional investors, including pension funds, that back these huge loss-making machines, however impressive and brandnames, at outlandish valuations at IPO times as would seem the flavour of the day. One of the pitfalls of history is that memory vanishes with passing generations allowing the rising one to repeat mistakes of the old ones. Memories of the tech bubble of the turn of the century are distant or non-existent, not to mention the tulip bubble of old.
Even if today listing tech companies are older, showing far more revenues and already winners in their sectors, it does not change the fact that a USD 120bn valuation for a company that never made profit and “may not achieve profitability” is lunacy and against all the sound principles of finance. The fact that there is too much money around should not lead to such valuations, knowing that the dividends of such tech companies will never be forthcoming any time soon if ever while their stock performance is unlikely to be stellar, which should make institutional investors now virtuously priding long-termism vs. short-termism to “justify” their investment decisions ponder them a bit more if only in view of their underlying pension members or clients.
Arguably such irrational developments may also hurt the growth prospects of much smaller start-ups which, even if they do not show unicorn features, are perfectly viable as potentially great companies but may not attract the same natural interest from some venture capitalists as they are not first scaler material. There is a need to ensure funding is sound at all levels the process from seed stage to IPO stage which should eventually produce an even greater number of attractive listing candidates for the institutional investment community in a win-win for all.
On a more macro-level such recent tech listing developments do not strengthen the viability of the financial system and may lead to systemic risks also at time when capitalism is under attack, often wrongly, from various segments of society. These tech valuation features carry the seeds of anti-capitalism promoted by extremist populism at a time when reforming capitalism should be much needed as recently and rightly suggested by the likes of Ray Dalio and Jamie Dimon so our Western liberal and capitalist model of society can survive and indeed thrive at this challenging juncture.
Warmest regards,
Serge
A half way house Article 50 extension is still better than none (even if…)
11-4-19
Dear Partners in thought,
I would have gone for a one year delay like most EU member states wished but for France and a small minority of others only as I hoped (very naively as there is still no indication for it) that a well-prepared second referendum could eventually be organised more easily. Obviously no UK plan was on offer yesterday against granting any extension as it was requested and France believed six months would give enough time and, based on past experience, also needed focus for the UK to finalise the Brexit process. I am sad that this French stance was driven by the feeling that the UK will indeed leave and that the political will to organise a second referendum is not there, the latter against the mood of the country and facts and reality. May’s request for an extension until 30 June was unrealistic based on what she and Parliament have achieved to date. A six month “flextension” under close watch to avoid any EU disruption should give the UK time to focus and finalise. However as the UK will participate in the EU parliamentary elections (unless there is a deal before 25 May and knowing the EU will not renegotiate the agreed withdrawal agreement), let’s hope that this EU electoral process should give the strong impetus at the people’s level to organise a confirmatory referendum on the eventually chosen exit and staying in the Union even it time will be tight. And when all is said and done, any delay is better than none at all levels. And everything is still possible.
Warmest regards,
Serge
Letter to a Leaver friend on Brexit
6-4-19
Dear Partners in thought,
I recommend you reading the very good FT pieces last friday from Martin Wolf (“A long extension offers a chance to think again on Brexit”) and Philip Stephens (“Farewell EU and the United Kingdom”).
As we are going through a deluge of statements regarding Brexit, I did not want to add the usual Interlude to the saga we know. Instead I wanted to share with you something I wrote today “from the heart and from the mind” to one of my dearest friends and great thinker and professional who chose to vote Leave nearly three years ago, driven by a need to restore British sovereignty. I think that it captures the whole reasons why I would have chosen to remain (a term by the way that did not help the cause as action is much preferred than inaction especially if people have a grudge or suffer from something…).
Warmest regards,
Serge
…
Dear Michael,
Were I British (and as a “European”) I would first look at the costs of Brexit which are real and may last, to an extent which would depend on the type of Brexit. I think it is economic self harm that was not needed (the USD equivalent 800m loss a week, including about half for public services and the 2.5 percentage point decline in GDP since June 2016 are coming from Goldman Sachs and other institutions that would rather state better news). There is a lot of truth in the slogan “we did not vote to be poorer”. It means jobs and investments which the UK got aplenty before as it was also to many a port of entry into the EU market which spoke the Latin of the day. I especially worry today about the services industry which is by far way bigger than the trade in goods for the UK.
I secondly look at the value of blocs in today’s world. I feel we are stronger “together” especially at a time when China is rising, America is erratic and Russia may be bellicose to sort out its own problems. And I wonder if a UK out of the EU is strategically and commercially viable compared with being part of the EU however the feeling of pride associated with sovereignty and independence (and indeed the Victorian times for some; on that I rather remember “the sick man of Europe” of the 70s). On sovereignty I never felt France was in chains or that Britain was as part of the EU even if the calibration of eggs may have been a thorn to some. I sadly feel like your last Ambassador to the EU in that what Britain will get by being out of the EU, its biggest market by far, is “notional sovereignty” while it will have to deal with all sorts of trade laws and regulations that it will no longer shape as part of the EU in what was always a great British skill (personally I like the UK in the EU as it brings a needed free market influence that often won the day). It is also overwhelming the number of trade treaties the UK would have to renegotiate, not to mention developing a relation at all levels with the EU where we saw the reality of asymmetric power.
Finally I think the most terrible thing about this whole debate is that people tend to forget what they take for granted, that is the good things that the EU brought not only in terms of a peaceful Europe and the Erasmus programme but simply in terms of real economic benefits to member states and indeed particularly the large ones like the UK. I agree that the bureaucrats in Brussels are not always great and that everything can be reformed at so many levels but that is the beauty of the EU experiment – It is a work in progress that keeps adjusting to the vagaries of the world. I also think that the EU brought us many nice things at the personal level we forget at times, something only possible thanks to the EU set up. We of all people live happily in Prague through these benefits.
As an aside, one should recognise the impressively cohesive behaviour of the EU as a bloc in the negotiations (something that was never a given) and its genuine drive to find ways that would work for both parties (exemplified by Barnier) even if there were times when the bloc needed to be firm, for existential reasons (one can’t pick and choose club rules) but also especially as Britain was not fully understanding (its MPs but also May and the Cabinet) that the subject at hand was not only a British one.
I have felt like going through a divorce of sorts and really would like that a second referendum takes place, hoping that the UK finally stays but more so that it gives some solace to all as the people would have finally and conclusively decided.
Warmest regards,
Serge
April Fool’s Day thoughts
1-4-19
Dear Partners in thought,
Given April Fool’s Day I wanted to share with you some of the highly sensible predictions I thought we could have today (and could never be fake news of course):
- Britain finally stays in the EU on better terms than before after a three year extension of Article 50 granted by Brussels against an immediate repudiation of the British parliamentary system
- Lib-Dems sweep to power in Britain in coalition with the Scottish National Party following a General election with the British Marxist party as sole opposition, the Conservative and Labour Parties numbering 17 seats and having to work together
- Unknown Nevada politician Lucie Flores dumps Bernie Sanders, recants on her allegations against Joe Biden, who was always such a warm guy, and wholeheartedly joins his presidential ticket for 2020
- MAGA-cap wearing and DC-visiting high school student loses his dual USD 250m lawsuit against the Washington Post and CNN and is forced to eat his beautiful hat in a Native-American reservation
- Emmanuel Macron officially makes Saturday “Yellow Vest Day” and makes the yellow vest the mandatory dress code for all the weekly ministers’ councils as a way to convince demonstrators that policy should not be made in the street (dammit!)
- Donald Trump finally decides not to represent himself in 2020 though strikes a deal with Mike Pence so Ivanka is on the ticket and Jared is finally White House Chief of staff
- China finally decides not to take Italy as part of its Belt and Road Initiative after spending too much time with Salvini and di Matteo who they nevertheless find “interesting people” as they regretfully conclude they really cannot digest all that pasta
Warmest regards,
Serge
Dangerous Hero – Corbyn’s ruthless plot for power – Tom Bower
29-3-19
Dear Partners in thought,
In a nice fit with some Interludes on the Brexit saga and as I was intrigued about him and his strange journey, I wanted to know more about Jeremy Corbyn, the unlikely leader of the Labour Party at an incredibly challenging time for Britain. I felt that I was not the only one in the dark as to whom this unlikely leader was and where he came from. While we hear a lot about JC, we actually know very little beyond his historical radical past and the usual accusations, such as those linked to anti-Semitism, that have stuck to him for months (and we discover, years) now. So with all of this in mind, I would like to tell you about “Dangerous Hero – Corbyn’s ruthless plot for power”, a brand new book by journalist Tom Bower, once at the BBC, who has been covering news and writing books on world events and their makers since the late 1960s. TB’s book goes into Corbyn’s roots and his political journey, explaining how he was able to seize the Labour leadership, only eighteen years after Blair’s New Labour emerged and five after Gordon Brown’s sunset, taking it way leftwards in a stark contrast with his own electorate but on the strength of new party members, many of whom quite radical, whom he brought with him to change the course of British politics. The story of JC from the early 1970s to now is also a story of the Labour Party and a reminder, for those who forgot it, of the Marxist and Trotskyist radicalism of a huge segment of that party at the local authority level and the many radicalised union-led strikes and electricity shortages that were the daily experience of the British people during that socially challenging pre-Thatcher period.
To be fair, TB’s book could have been commissioned by the Tory Central Office so much it is a hatchet job on JC (however deserved it may be) so this should be borne in mind. Interestingly Tom Bower is a contemporary of JC and was even a radical student at the London School of Economics, then known as “Tom the Red” before shedding a lot of the colour as he “grew up”. With this in mind, it is quite key to remember that the JC attributes stated in this Book Note are really from TB’s book, which does come across as a never ending list of shortcomings with very few redeeming features. If all these attributes were indeed true and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, it is hard to believe that JC would be qualified to hold any type of high political office in the UK. While such a peculiar background would make his rise to the Labour leadership all the more surprising, it may also be linked to his core skill of artful insider’s political party maneuvering, which to some may indeed be JC’s only skillset since he entered politics as a radical youth.
JC was born in Wiltshire in May 1949 and joined Labour as a teenager, becoming a Trade Union representative when moving to London. In 1974 ha was elected to Haringey Council and became Secretary of the Hornsey Constituency Labour Party before being elected MP for Islington North in 1983. Being a left wing radical, he often opposed the Labour leadership throughout his career, focusing his action on anti-fascim, anti-apartheid, nuclear disarmament and a united Ireland, many positions being effectively against US and Western interests both before and after the Cold War. During the Blair and Brown years, JC often opposed “New Labour” and chaired such groups as the Stop the War Coalition. He became Labour Leader in 2015, taking the party leftwards, supporting the re-nationalisation of public utilities and the railways, a less interventionist military policy and an increase of funding for welfare and public services. Although a Eurosceptic he supported mildly remaining in the EU during the June 2016 referendum, much alike Theresa May when the Home Secretary of David Cameron’s government. He was able to secure his leadership by increasing the number of new left wing members in the Labour Party, knowing that they and not Labour voters would now decide on the party leadership. In doing so he created a gap between a radicalised Labour leadership and a much more moderate base. The most damaging criticism against JC over the last three years has been attacks on his perceived antisemitism, going back to his early years of public life and strong opposition to Israel, which he was not able to quell through clear and definite personal refutations now that he is the Labour leader.
TB interviewed a lot of the then young radical left leaders of the early seventies for his book (those, we learn, who did not commit suicide as many did), most who did not achieve political stardom as they were outside the British establishment circles. Many remembered JC though all were in agreement to state how unimpressive he was intellectually, making his rise to power at Labour all the more surprising, if not for his doggedness and “entryst” qualities (entrysm being the favourite infiltration game of left radicals wanting to take over local Labour Party committees the Marxist and “Trot” ways). We discover an uneducated JC, something that nobody knows, later going to great length to be against school elitism, even preferring for his children not to go to good schools so as not to give them an unfair advantage even if they would receive a worst education by not doing so. We see a JC who boasted about books he never read (we discover that he does not read books) or cannot manage his family finances to the point his debts will lead him to his second divorce (he remarried in 2013), providing a poor prospect for leading the country. Not understanding Marxism or Trotskyism as political “philosophies” he would nonetheless stick to all their tenets to “make the rich pay” and promote true socialism in the UK, first at the local authority of Haringey which he would eventually lead after much internecine warfare, characteristic of the Labour dynamics in the 1970s.
Quite aside from the political arena, TB takes us to a trip into JC’s private life which is not that private as politics is everything for him. We read about JC’s travels with his first wife which were not focused on having a good time in nice accommodations but on tent/camping and eating can food to her dismay even though she was also from the hard left. They even traveled to Central Europe and visited Vienna though he made the point not to enter the palace of Schoenbrunn as it was too much a sign of imperial power. Similarly they visited Czechoslovakia and Prague with JC praising the local regime for its achievements on the road to socialism, felling no sympathy for the “delusional” Prague coup, otherwise known as “Prague Spring” of 1968.
TB takes us through the life of JC as a Labour activist in Haringey, followed by his election in 1974 as a Council member and head of the public works committee while also being Secretary of the Hornsey Constituency Labour Party and head of the local National Employers Public Employees’ union or NUPE, a multiplicity of roles that would create conflicts of interests during strike times that were many in the mid-to late 70s. Interestingly Jane Chapman, his first wife, also chaired a Haringey Council Committee, most council members finding her more capable than JC. Their relationship will go gradually South, JC not caring much for their couple and its well being (as we had noted in terms of their holiday plans), being totally devoted to his cause of a hard left, Trotskyste activism.
We run into JC’s “fellow Labour travellers” among the hard left some of whom would become leading figures, like Ken Livingstone (future Mayor of London before Boris Johnson), John McDonnell (a very serious politician though of a very abrasive nature who would become Shadow Chancellor under JC after 2015), George Galloway (who would run onto many “affairs” over the years and became close to dubious foreign leaders) but also Tony Benn, a radical Labour grandee, close to JC party-wise, who shared many traditional features with the Tories given his background and the Marxist Ralph Miliband, father of Ed and David, a future left wing Labour leader (opposing David Cameron as PM) and a future New Labour foreign secretary (under Gordon Brown). Those individuals were very active in the Labour Party throughout the 1970s, creating much positioning headache for the Labour moderates and various party leaders and PMs from Harold Wilson, to Dennis Healey to Michael Foot even if the latter was not deemed a moderate. This was the time of very controversial party members with some MPs involved in lobby groups like the World Peace Organisation or the Movement for Colonial Freedom actually financed by the Soviet Union, a fact that was not always obvious at the time (JC was a member of the MCF). To those men (there were very few women though Dianne Abbott, still an active Labour MP, was one of them), all radical activists, JC was not a leader in the making but just a team member, lacking the requisite intellect and Marxist grounding to be considered leadership material unlike a Tony Benn.
While the Tories had won a general election in 1979 leading to the Thatcher and a pro-business, free markets era, harsh economic times were leading them to an eventual loss in the next general election, just garnering 20% in the polls. Then, as often in history, a foreign crisis erupted in April 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands off their shores as a way to unite its people and deflect domestic problems. The UK reacted swiftly, with backing from the U.S. and sent a naval force which eventually re-took the islands and led to the collapse of the Galtieri junta. The Falklands war united Britain with Labour led by Michael Foot supporting the Thatcher government and only a few Labour MPs and elected officials including JC to oppose military intervention. JC came across as an enemy of the UK and the U.S. and a supporter of Stalin, Mao, Castro and Galtieri, the latter even if a hard right military dictator whose views were polar opposite of JC. As the mood turned pro-Tory following the quick war (in spite of the loss of HMS Sheffield which some war opponents declared was let happen so Britain could go full force against the Argentines) the country was getting ready for the June 1983 general elections. Residents and businesses were leaving Haringey, the highest spending British local authority with the highest rates aimed at funding administrative staff increases (including two “anti-nuclear officers” charged with promoting world peace). On election day, Labour’s campaign manifesto, driven by a draconian programme of wealth confiscation, was dubbed “the longest suicide note in history”. Labour that should have won handsomely pre-Falklands, did not withstand its Marxist drive and secured its worst result since 1918 with 27.6% vs. 42.4% for the once doomed Thatcherian Tories. Britain’s working class, many of whom own their cars and homes, largely voted for Margaret Thatcher.
In spite of this debacle, JC got his first parliamentary election victory and joined the reduced Labour group in Westminster. He showed no interest in the dynamics of Parliament including those of its own group, not playing as a team member and contributing little to the group and Whips’ wishes. JC displayed very personal positions on Israel (opposing it firmly while always supporting any aspect of the Palestinian cause) or Nicaragua (supporting Daniel Ortega and opposing the Contras and the U.S.) or even the IRA which was making headlines in all of the 1980s with terrorist attacks on the mainland (with JC defending the rights of jailed terrorists) or supporting the new Marxist government of Grenada that orchestrated a coup in the island. As JC started his new parliamentary career, actually allowing him at long last to have a better lifestyle, substantial disruption was erupting with the national miners’ strike and their flying pickets from Yorkshire and Scotland. The strikes which made headlines the world over were strongly supported by JC and the hard left MPs and led by Arthur Scargill, who would become the frontal opponent to Margaret Thatcher (it was later shown that the strikes were also funded by both the Soviets and Gaddafi’s Libya). When Tony Blair came to power with a strong victory for New Labour in 1997, he had to deal with two oppositions comprising the Tories who had lost power after nearly two decades and his own left wing with the likes of JC and John McDonnell (he seriously considered whether deselection was not possible but having such a strong majority decided to live with this impediment). On an amusing note following his divorce in 1999 from his second wife, Claudia, JC had a string of relationships with many women (so that the tabloids nicknamed him “Hot Trot” not getting what the attraction for this unkempt and ill-mannered man could be) until he met Laura Alvarez from Mexico, a small party activist but a great JC follower unlike his two previous wives, whom he married in 2013.
As an MP JC will only and proudly represent the hard left on domestic and foreign policy matters. He will be pushing policies that are hard core socialist if not communist including the nationalisation of banks and public transport. Internationally he will have softer stances towards the Soviet bloc during the Cold War (so much so that he met several times with Czech diplomats who were intelligence officers in London – though never betrayed). He will consistently be on the opposite side of the U.S., UK and the West in general on nearly all foreign policy matters ranging from his pro-Ira stance during the troubles (his friend, John McDonnell would publicly apologise for his support years later on the BBC), Cuba and Castro, the hard-line Islamic if not Islamist organisations, going as far as almost admiring the “skills” of the plane hijacking terrorists on 9-11, Iran, the Afghan and Iraq wars (of note, he would be “right” about the WMDs, not that his general intent was not misplaced initially), Gaddafi and Lybia, and of course Israel generally (resurrecting the now topical question regarding the link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism that have plagued his leadership). As stated JC was very-Eurosceptic, not hiding his historical disdain for the EU as a capitalist pot against the masses. On the central subject of terrorism across Europe and the response to it, JC will always find it hard to support the killings of terror’s perpetrators like in the wake of the Paris November 2015 attacks, ideally preferring bringing the culprits to the courts, however unrealistic the ideal option. Hugo Chavez and then Nicolas Maduro became JC’s favourites as they were pushing Venezuelan socialism, this in spite of creating the most indebted country in the world particularly as oil prices would also plunge. Later on as the Syrian civil war would worsen, JC would want to wait for tangible proof to agree that the regime had been behind the deadly mass-chemical attack against children as footage might have been fabricated by the West.
We go through the period when Labour goes back gradually to its 1970s roots and Ed Miliband defeats in a less than brotherly contest the moderate David Miliband for party leadership bringing back the party to the left though not left enough for the likes of JC, John McDonnell or former JC flame, Dianne Abbott. The Blair legacy comes under attack and the moderates will lose power culminating with the likes of Andrew Burnham and Yvette Cooper (the latter whose name we hear on cross-party anti-Brexit amendments in 2019) losing against JC who reluctantly, at least on the surface, decided to run for party leader on the grounds that it was his “turn” and he “would do it after all”. Being a polite kind and not attracting criticism at the personal level, in spite of his positions at the odd of traditional Labour on many issues, he will eventually win the leadership contest in 2015. One of the reasons why he will win is that 66% of party members identified with the left while only 33% of Labour voters did. JC benefitted from a new rule whereby party members or those who paid 3 pounds would select the party leader at a time where the unions and Unite, a trade main union, in particular organised substantial increase in party membership. Thanks to the rule that sidelined the Labour MPs who were in the past choosing their leader Labour was able to go radical left in no time, even if by then JC and McDonnell were trying hard to shed any Communist or Trotskyist credentials due to the responsibilities they were about to assume (McDonnell donned a blue suit, white shirt and tie and JC became a bit more sartorial in no time). I will not cover the well-known period from when JC seizes the party leadership in 2015 which will be a continuation of half-hearted efforts at all levels to repudiate a radical past so as to appear potential Number 10 material, unbelievable neglect about antisemistim accusations against him and the top of the Labour team and a very ambivalent stance in relation to the June 2016 referendum due to a deep Euro-scepticism leading to a very mild involvement for the Remain camp, while Labour voters (though possibly not party members) were overwhelmingly Remainers. While the book does not cover it as the move was too recent, it is notable (on the positive side, at least for me) that JC finally and after a long time stated he supported a second referendum (the type to be clarified) even if only to stop a likely flow of Labour MP defection to the Independent Group in February.
It is difficult to rejoice at the quality (or lack thereof) of the Tory leadership as seen during the nearly three years of the Brexit process (including the fateful decision of David Cameron to make good on his promise to his hard right, nationalistic wing to hold a referendum if he won in 2015). However the ascent of JC to the Labour leadership created an impossibly shambolic “rock and a hard place” political landscape for Britain between a morphing radical left Labour as for its leaders and a gradually dysfunctional, irrational Conservative Party steered to “notional” sovereignty and economic self-harm by hard right, delusional Tory ideologues. In the absence of a sensible center, exemplified by a weak Liberal Democratic Party and in spite of new developments such as with the newish Independent group in February, Britain is faced with no sensible choice were to come a General Election. The most likely scenario would be a Tory victory based on Labour’s radicalism and leadership style but it would only come as a lesser of two evils. In many ways and strangely, while the Conservative party is imploding on Brexit (signing the death warrant of the most successful Western political party of the last 100 years), the Tories must find some solace in knowing that they might still come back to power in case of a General Election mainly thanks to JC and his top team that won party leadership but could never garner a majority of voters so out of touch they really are with economic and geopolitical reality. Now and having said this, as we contemplate the potential Brexit self harm potentially ahead, anything is possible and the race may be wide open given the contenders.
After reading TB’s book one wonders how someone so unskilled in so many fields and and unfit for main political party leadership or high office could have achieved what he did. Sadly it may be too accurate a reflection of where the British political establishment stands today as amply demonstrated with the amazing Brexit process the world has witnessed thus far. And I say this with great sorrow, hoping that the indispensable Britain the world knew and I loved for many years can find itself again.
Warmest regards
Serge
PS: If I wanted to be facetious (admittedly more than usual) I would wonder if JC was not betting on a deep collapse of the UK post-Brexit (while making all the tactically wise noises about the abhorrent “No Deal” option) to benefit from a deeply economically wounded British society that would more easily be tempted by the kind of radical changes he espoused all his life…While he might likely seize upon my idea with delight, one thing that refrains me from expressing that possibility is that we now know (if we believe Tom Bower) that he would not have read Machiavelli…
The Mueller Report is the wrong tree hiding the (de)forest(ation)
25-3-19
Dear Partners in thought,
Having not commented on Donald Trump for some time, I am very grateful for Robert Mueller finally sending his Report to the Attorney General of the U.S. who will then send his summary to Congressional Leaders (which the public will likely see), thus giving me a great opportunity.
It would appear that there is no more indictments coming up Robert Mueller’s way so we will be left with the judicial developments we already know regarding Flynn, Cohen, Manafort and a host of minor cogs in the Trump campaign wheel. It is clear that the word “victory’ can be heard from the White House and that the President, Donald Trump Jr. , Jared Kushner and Fox News must be rejoicing as we speak, which is perfectly natural. On the plus side, many will feel to be off the hook on the matter of Russian collusion even if much time will be spent on analysing the full report. On the minus side, the “victimisation” effect that could have help strengthening the resolve of DT’s core support base will not be there. The Special Investigation may end up having been much noise for not much in the end in terms of the main target of the investigation known as “Individual 1”. However it is also a blessing in disguise as there was little leeway to indict a sitting President and certainly no super-majority in Congress (or simply Senate) for impeachment, which would have resulted in a protracted and useless acrimonious debate that would never have led to DT’s removal however some of the Democrats might have wanted it. Nancy Pelosi never seemed gung ho, with reason, for any impeachment process on this very matter of Russian collusion given the odds and the need to focus on what mattered: the 2020 election process and the real issues with DT as President of the U.S.
The Mueller Report, whatever its final contents, is not the right path to change U.S. executive governance. The real issues with DT are multiple and can be found in his appalling Presidential style and role model, demeaning of American values and destruction of free trade and the Western Alliance, all while being out of touch with our times at so many levels like on Climate Change. His redeeming feature of being President in good economic times should not hide the real issues that sow the economic, cultural and political decline of America and the West in the medium term. All the more as the current economic strength of America is more seen in feel-good aggregate numbers with many Americans not feeling the trickling down effect as witnessed with the disappointing tax refunds or the actual increase in their material well being.
The focus should not be on the Mueller Report but on the ballot box. Democrats (and moderate Republicans) should be careful and spend more time lining up contenders and tickets who can in the end win nationally in 2020, reflecting what America really is.
Warmest regards
Serge
Maybe the EU should run the UK directly after all…
22-3-19
Dear Partners in thought,
It is hard not to find the EU’s latest stance in relation to the Brexit process and Article 50 extension very crafty and productive. The EU has given Ms. May an extension until May 22 to pass the necessary legislation if she first could pass “her deal” and then, if not, alternatively offered a two week extension until April 12 so MPs could have another go at a new plan (which could include “Norway”, a permanent customs union or a second referendum) following which, if a majority could be found for an option, then the EU would grant enough time to put the voted plan in motion. This is a master stroke as it kills Ms. May’s new, last minute volte face blackmail version of “pass my deal (for the third time) or get “No Deal” with the high likelihood that her deal will be voted down (still assuming a third vote is allowed by Parliamentary rules) and puts Parliament in front of its responsibilities while deflecting any blame for the abyss that could be addressed to the EU itself. All in all, while the EU is understandably preserving its core interests, it could not have acted in a way that would be better for the British people.
If one were facetious, one could be almost forgiven for wondering if the UK should not be better off being run by Bruxelles…This could even be a question on a future referendum…I would never dare saying this of course.
Warmest regards,
Serge
9 lessons in Brexit – Sir Ivan Rogers
21-3-19
Dear Partners in thought,
As we are deep into the Brexit Westminster saga. I wanted to tell you about “9 lessons in Brexit” from Sir Ivan Rogers who was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair and served David Cameron as Prime Minister’s Adviser for Europe and Global Affairs from 2012 to 2013 when he was named Ambassador to the EU. YR was the most senior negotiator for the UK with the EU until he resigned from his position in January 2017. YR comes across as the epitome of the senior British civil servant who is not swayed by partisan politics – he states very vividly he is not “a politician” – and only thinks about the national interest. His book, which is primarily addressed to a British readership, is “to tell some home truths about the failure of the British political class and the flaws, dishonesty and confusion inherent in the UK’s approach to Brexit so far”. While YR is likely a Remainer (as a matter of simple fact(s)) he is not a zealot and his book, while wanting to state facts notably about the trade and economic impact of Brexit and what treaties actually mean, is not to demean but to clarify (even if some references to “some of the right honourable members for the 18th century for whom it will not end well” is quite clear. With only 80 pages (though at times very long sentences – kind of like mine), his book which is a recap of lectures he has given to various universities since his role in Bruxelles, is a very concise, clear and efficient way to help readers understand what really matters with Brexit.
As JK Rowling’s preface says: “Remember the words of Yvan Rogers the next time you see some plausible posh boy in a suit telling you no deal would not hurt at all”. Besides her artful statement, JK Rowling stresses the key point behind YR’s lessons which is that whatever Brexit deal is on offer, the “No Deal” option lauded by many hard line ERG Brexiteers would lead the UK to the economic abyss, primarily hurting many of the Leavers of the left out category in places like Northeastern England and Wales.
With all that in mind, it is also worth to read Fareed Zakaria’s latest piece in The Washington Post which clearly states that Brexit seems to herald the decline of the UK and more generally that of the Western world as China is rising. What Brexiteers failed to grasp in their inward looking approach to all things Brexit (as seen in the way they shape options without realising the EU is also a negotiating party, quite apart from British partisan politics) is the adverse “global” impact of Leave and the harm not only to the UK but also to the European and Western blocs, notably at a time when the Trump Administration sees little value in the latter.
As Simon Kuper from the FT aptly said recently: Remainers talk about the economy while Leavers talk about culture (to which I would add their versions of “full sovereignty” and “identity” for some and by extension “immigration”, fuelled by fear, for many) so it is the usual dialogue of the deaf. YR’s focus is on the negotiation with the EU so much centring on trade of goods and services (not an easy matter to grasp, especially the latter which is key for the UK in its relationship with the EU). He is not so much into “culture” – not as he is a Remainer (which he is even though he makes no mention of it) but as it was his job to sort out a deal with the EU on matters mainly focused on the economy, even if we know that freedom of movement (which in fairness he touches upon too) was a key point for both the UK and the EU and indeed a breaking point or catalyst for many of the Leavers in June 2016.
The nine lessons (and their, at times, strange headings) and messages are as follows:
1st Lesson: “It has of course to be Brexit means Brexit”.
This was the famous line uttered by Theresa May as she officially succeeded David Cameron as PM as a prelude to stressing it was also the Will of the People that the government would deliver upon, come what May. This truism has consequences too, literally al the way. If you are not in, you are out. It is a major regime change. And if you leave, you cannot pick and chose the terms you like and those you don’t. You lose the solidarity that membership gives and in case of friction with one member other members will support it and not you (think Gibraltar) More assertiveness and multi-day, multi-night summit won’t help getting a more understanding EU all the more as Bruxelles is negotiating with a soon-to-be third country. Thinking about YR’s lines one cannot help wondering about the takes of the British PM and the various Brexit Secretaries who always think the EU will accept what they want and have concocted in the Cabinet or following the latest Westminster debates, even when the EU leadership stressed negotiations are substantially over.
2nd Lesson: “Other people have sovereignty too. And they too may change to “take back control” of things you would rather they didn’t”
In a preemptive act of recognition addressed to Leavers, YR acknowledges that the pooling of sovereignty beyond the mere technical regulatory domain into huge areas of public life can be intolerable for some. However “pooling” for many small member nations of the EU is also enhancing their sovereignty through their adherence to common rules, an approach that can also be shared by leading EU member states that understand the virtues and value of blocs in our day in age. YR could have had an easy comparison that would be grasped by hard Brexiteers in that the EU is like a club in St James’s. As already discussed in other Book Notes and Interludes, one joins the club and can later leave it but one has to adhere to club rules when belonging to it and cannot once having left being allowed to benefit from some aspects of membership like in an à la carte menu. YR stresses clearly that the “taking back control” may be in fact very notional with “the autonomy to make British laws over the real power to set the rules by which Britain will in practice be governed as it is no longer be in the room, potentially not even as an observer, when those are set up”. Strong from his experience, YR feels that the “taking back control” amounts to a “simulacrum for some empty suits in Westminster” who may find their day of reckoning in the years ahead as passion recedes and reality sets in.
3rd Lesson: “Brexit is a process not an event. And the EU while strategically myopic is formidably good at process against negotiating opponents. We have to be so, or we will get hammered. Repeatedly.”
YR stresses how delusional Brexiteers have been in stressing how much the EU had morphed from the initial Common Market the UK joined to get into every aspect of British life but that “leaving” would be done swiftly and painlessly. A trade deal with the EU should have been ready by time of exit which, to say the least, after 33 months is very, very far from being the case. No deal would also pause no problem (as the bold and confident hard Brexiteer supporters’ poster says: No deal, no problem). No number or repetition of “WTO Deal” makes Brexit any more real or effective and their assertions by the No Dealers are fantasies produced by people who would “not have recognised a trade treaty if they had found one in their soup”. Interestingly YR speaks as an expert (a dangerous word in the West in 2019) who has negotiated trade treaties and has concocted many soup recipes over the years. YR thus stresses that the original British sin was not to recognise the complexity and inevitable longevity of the Brexit process while sellers of cheap elixirs were promising the British people the moon, tomorrow. This lack of preparedness was compounded by the naive belief that the UK would do negotiation mince mint of an EU “that was nothing if not expert at using the tensions in domestic politics to force the moves it most wants you to make”, something YR stresses it and the 27 member states cannot be blamed for. As a good example of EU acumen is the self-made trap Ms May displayed with apparent cunning in trying to leverage her No Deal threat to get what she wanted from the EU which in turn invariably played against her domestically, given the looming economic costs to the UK, without making Bruxelles budge, all because of the asymmetry of the contest which sadly for the hard Brexiteers also reflected the future of things to come in many aspects of a new relationship with the bloc.
4th Lesson: “It is not possible or democratic to argue (as hard Brexiteers do) that only one Brexit destination is true, legitimate and representative of the revealed “Will of the People” and that all other potential destinations outside the EU are “Brexit in Name Only”
People voted in June 2016 for Leave or Remain though for a variety of very different reasons. He finds that many Leavers wanted to leave the institutions of political and juridical integration of the EU but were still keen on the Single Market (bringing to memory that even Napoleon had said unkindly that the Brits were “a nation of shopkeepers”). YR actually defends those pragmatists who are disliked by the true Brexiteers for whom there is only one Brexit path that has to be all encompassing. Norway and Switzerland which chose not to join the EU years back and were seen by Brexiteers once as vibrant democracies are now not so admirable a model for the Brexit path to be chosen by the UK as they are yet far too integrated. YR while not being an advocate of a Norway EEA arrangement for the UK or actually Ms. May’s deal (which he also thinks was well negotiated by the EU) is concerned that most political activists we hear barely understand those types of alternatives.
5th Lesson: “If WTO (World Trade Organisation) terms or existing EU preferential deals are not good enough for the UK in major “third country” markets they can’t be good enough for trade with our largest market (indeed the EU)”
YR points to the high wire act of moving beyond WTO terms and striking preferential trade deals with major markets as a major step forward in liberalising trade while deliberately moving back to WTO terms from an existing deep preferential trade agreement, through what is the Single Market, as a major step backward to less free trade with the UK’s main market. While there is no logic and it is unarguable, many Brexiteers do, also forgetting that genuine free trade – which they claim to love – actually trammels cherished national sovereignty. According to YR, Brexit will worsen trade with and market access to the EU which, together with markets with which the EU has a preferential trade deal, accounts for two-thirds of British exports. Every version of Brexit will involve a worsening of the UK’s position and a loss of access to its largest market, not to mention that trade deals the UK would need to strike will be very numerous and will take a long time that Brexiteers do not fathom.
6th Lesson: The huge problem for the UK with either reversion to WTO terms or a standard free trade deal with the EU is in services”.
It is “the case of the dog that failed to bark so far” but will in the next few years while the focus has been on the trade of goods, tariffs (no longer the single big issue it was in trade), the manufacturing supply chain and departing the Single market and Customs Union. This is explained by the fact that the trade in services, always bundled with goods and the huge complexities of its non-tariff barriers, is not easy to grasp. Trade in services represents three quarters of the British economy, which the City of London, actually a small part of the total exemplifies (with many banks ready with their reallocation plans to Paris, Frankfurt and Luxembourg). Many of these services (not hairdressing) are tradable across borders with Britain is clearly very competitive in them like inter alia finance, business consulting, accountancy, legal and education services. They also represent an export to the EU of EUR 90 bn a year in 2016 or as much as what Britain exports to its eight next export markets put together, this leading to a significant services trade surplus with its leading market. This lesson deals with how the needs of the UK’s services industry were sacrificed to the primary goal of ending free movement (also one might surmise as the sector is probably more filled with Tory voters that would not desert their party to back the “new” Labour (pun intended) and Jeremy Corbyn, in spite of the figures at stake). When attacking the EU Single Market on trade, it is also worth remembering that services trade is freer between member states than it is even between States in the U.S. Given the economic imperative for a country that has a world class services industry, the EU knows the UK will have to pay a heavy price to maintain better access to its largest market for its finance, legal and consultancy firms than other third countries have. However there is no real focus on the issue of services trade today. By way of background information EY just released an estimate that the UK would lose GBP 1 trillion to Europe due to Brexit following plans financial services companies had to implement (See FT, 20th March, 2019).
7th Lesson: “Beware all supposed deals bearing pluses”.
The “Canada +++”, “Super-Canada”, “Norway +”, “Norway-then-Canada”, “Norway-for-Now”, “Norway + forever” and now even “No Deal +”, “Managed no deal” or “No deal mini deals” – putting aside the facetious feelings of these names – are depressing to the professional trade negotiator as they all involve dishonest propositions with deficiencies that will disappear once the British team negotiates their own “pluses” version that will make them fly. Out of sheer will and doggedness (à-la-May I would add). To these trade artists who who see “Brexit as a cake-walk”, YR sees only “half-baked alternatives”.
8th Lesson: “You cannot and should not want to conduct such a huge negotiation as un-transparently as the UK has. And in the end it does you no good to try”.
YR is adamant that the EU has been a model of transparency throughout the Brexit negotiating process, rupturing the image of “a bunch of wildly out of touch technocrats producing turgid, jargon-ridden Eurocrat prose”. Conversely the British government and negotiating teams have been at their most opaque as a result of its internal divisions and quite “unable to articulate any agreed, coherent position”. YR reminds us that it is the EU that had to up its game over the years, precisely as it gradually ended up doing more trade deals than any other trade bloc on the planet. In doing so the EU has developed a way to inform its public, something the UK failed to do out of a lack of habit. Constraints and trade-offs were never explained nor were managed.
9th Lesson: “Real honesty with the public is the best – the only – policy if we are to get to the other side of Brexit with a healthy democracy, a reasonably unified country and a strong economy”.
To YR the whole Brexit process of the last 30 (now 33) months has suffered from opacity, delusion and mendacity. He goes through the various positions of the “no dealers” with their bold and decisive jump off the cliff with a delusional WTO rules safety net; the People’s voters who may have a case after so much time (and I would add real facts) but who would alienate those whose views would be ignored once more until they conform; the Shadow Cabinet Members looking for a General Election that would allow Labour to miraculously negotiate a full trade deal that would mimic the advantages of the Single Market and Customs Union that the EU would naturally welcome with open arms and finally the PM’s “bad deal” that has the merit of having been negotiated and signed with the EU but bears the scars of the dishonesty of the debate fuelled by HM’s government since June 2016. The only regret one might have is that YR does not come forward with the “scenario” he would favour as if he still were the senior civil servant of the realm and not a decider.
If there was one key criticism to make it would be that the lesson should be better formulated and perhaps less focused only on trade even if if it is a key area of YR’s expertise and is indeed a major issue to consider. However YR’s negotiating remit was very much on trade-related matters so at least we get the benefit of his expertise on something he knows well and is key. Another one would be that YR does not seem to think much of another referendum (a brief mention is made in two lessons) and is only focused on encouraging the needed debate on viable Brexit options, this is spite of his very likely support of EU membership and of its benefits and believing that he is not a crusader for the Will of the People at all costs to the British nation. Lastly YR does not provide his views on what would be the best avenue to leave the EU even if one can surmise that Ms May’s signed deal with the EU should a viable, if not a perfect option, though one he actually does not support either.
While YR does not dwell enough on it and it might explain many of the problems we have witnessed with consternation – and again being away from the “sound and the fury” is useful to arrive at this conclusion – one cannot miss the obvious precedence of sheer partisan politics over the national interest when dealing with the Brexit process. For many Cabinet members, MPs and other politicians , Brexit is a means and not an end. It has been used as a means to ascertain power, partisan or personal, with the backdrop of the most desolate political landscape in modern British history. Some thinking about a general election, their seats and how to save them, some wanting to deliver on an agenda that has become hollow and dangerous with time. As YR rightly states in Lesson 8, rather than the negotiation process, in and beyond Parliament, politicians would have had to be different from the outset. One of the key elements of concern for Britain and its future “vassal state” status in its relationship with its biggest market and soon to be third party trading “partner” is that it will no longer be able to influence EU laws and regulations as it artfully did for years putting it at a strategic disadvantage and reflecting its relatively small nation state status (conversely the EU – and I regret this deeply – will not benefit from this unique free market flavour in Europe that had to be taken into account in building EU laws and regulations and was a great advantage later on to the UK itself).
All the lessons proposed by YR are worth reading, especially about their specific contents and all the more as we may be going into “some” extension of Article 50. I wish that some cabinet members and MPs would read this Book Note and even more so, the actual book so they could become enlightened for once and remind all of us why Britain is the mother of wise and modern democracy.
Warmest regards
Serge

You must be logged in to post a comment.