18-11-19

Dear Partners in thought,

We live in odd times, especially in America (ok, in Britain for sure and maybe Italy too). America has the worst President on record in terms of style, values, principles and leadership – to keep the list short. In a world upside down, a TV reality star with great property development “marketing” acumen won the biggest job in the world, with impacts on us all, simply as he had known how to gamble for years (sometimes literally) and the stars were aligned in a few states, all with the help of an electoral system whose potential flaws, however their historical merits, had not been so clear before 2016. To make matters weirder he is also supported by a strong economy in spite of everything he has led, trade wars especially, that risk upsetting the apple cart (the red ones too) though perhaps after 2020. Again all that background, there is a majority of Americans not happy with Trump though they do not think alike on many matters in spite of their dislike or hatred of the President. America never ceases to amaze.

The Democrats have embarked on an impeachment process which is right as any President needs to be accountable when they cross some lines. However this process as we see it daily is a way for Trump to victimise himself and strengthen his core base even though he unleashes vile Twitter attacks on sober and respectable foreign policy professionals who testify in the House about the matter of his likely Ukraine-related abuse of power. One would imagine, like during Watergate, that some bipartisanship could be struck based on facts but the lines hold strongly. The outcome of the impeachment process, which had to be launched this time (even if the House Leader knew the obvious risks) is foretold in that Trump will be impeached by the House and likely rescued on the Senate floor as GOP senators are not yet ready to dump the President to save their seats and dignity for now.        

Trump voters do not mind about facts, they do mind about outcome and their inner beliefs, combined with a drive to fight the other side and finding a culprit for their unease or anger, be it the Deep State, globalisation, the two-coastal Liberals or even for some the minorities. Trump could indeed shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose many votes as he said in the last campaign – all of that while having no real historical “proximity”, social or otherwise, to his core base, having actually been more at home in the elite segments of society since he was born. Women supporters, even among evangelicals, who would shoot their husbands if they adopted Trump’s behaviours, think that the President’s attitude towards women is a personal matter – the next Supreme Court Judge being more key to them.  We live in a world of unconditional love for Trump among its core base, something that is actually a “fact” today. There is a bit of a Faustian pact among Trump’s supporters, red cap or not (without the horns).

It is interesting to notice that, even with a very “favourable” environment, the Democrats have failed so far to find the right candidate with the strong attributes to win in 2020 even if polls give them winners for now. Two are radical left wingers and risk alienating the strong moderate base with policies that may be seen as running against the American way (Warren, Sanders), one may be too old for some in “many ways” (Biden) and one may be too young and unusual (Mayor Pete). The Dems have not found their saviour, being constrained by their own candidate selection process and perhaps a lack of new talent. The state of play has led many good individuals to enter the fray to offer a “more suitable choice” and to maximise victory. The recent arrival (to be confirmed but his moves in many states and ad campaign make him a candidate) is Michael Bloomberg, another New Yorker, though one well loved for his achievements and work for the city. Yet we find someone who is also factually old, inexperienced in campaigning and with a background that may be welcome on Wall Street but less digestible in other parts. His decision to skip the early primaries may also not be smart even if his legendary mastery of the numbers tell him so (Who wins New Hampshire wins the primary. OK, but only if you take part maybe). The late arrival of Bloomberg and Patrick says it all about where the Dems are – some saying a repeat of the 1988 race leading to the esteemed Mike Dukakis winning the nomination – even if in the end Biden should prevail in spite of all his shortcomings, also as he would definitely beat Trump, fulfilling what matters most in 2020, and go for one mandate (making the VP selection absolutely key).  

America never ceases to amaze but it is a also “the” country of hopes, even if in a current state of flux, so let’s not despair.

Warmest regards,

Serge

11-11-19

Dear Partners in thought,

This month of November is heavy in celebrations and memories from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Velvet Revolution in Prague and similar developments across the former Soviet sphere thirty years ago. While it was a momentous point in history, it proved not to be the end of it as Francis Fukuyama hoped for but rather a wind of freedom that ran into the daily hurdles of rebuilding a civilisation and a system that could could make us work together, especially in Europe. 

As I was going through the rooms of the exhibit celebrating the Velvet Revolution in the Prague summer palace this past week I could not help but thinking that the broadcast news of my younger years were now, well, history. I remember the times when right after the fall of the Wall, as a young banker, my team leader Jan, a Londoner of historical Polish descent, and I went through the large Soviet style rooms of the Ministry of Finance in Warsaw to pitch for and win their pioneering and transformational Mass Privatisation Programme. This unusual banking episode likely led me to combine finance and history when I joined the new EBRD in 1993 to help rebuild at my small level a new continent and facilitate market transition through investment projects with high “additionality” (the institution’s then buzzword) throughout Central & Eastern Europe. As Dean Acheson for another period had stated and in a much lesser role for me then, the feeling of being “present at the creation” was very vivid and thrilling.  

It is easy to moan about the failures, which were many in the 1990s and after, in terms of rebuilding a world where social and economic liberalism would lead the way as if there was no tomorrow. It is fair to say that we did our best given the constraints at play, however imperfect the outcome. However we need to be pragmatic and realistic and see where we are. Thirty years later, the West is under threat as to what it means, nationalism is resurgent both in Western and Central & Eastern Europe, liberalism is under siege and capitalism is no longer revered. And yet we keep going.

America under Trump has lost its mantle of Western leadership based on its founding fathers’ values that undeniably protected us while serving its interests very well the world over since WW2. An “America first”, prone to protectionism, further disengagement and unilateralism, gradually emerged in an erratic and troubling way, with allies getting increasingly lost as to its game plan, if any. From Europe and also for Americans and the world one would hope that voters, who still would back Trump while holding their noses, see beyond short-term economic gains and focus on what really matters and what made America this unique country in November 2020.  

Russia, which was neglected in the 1990s notably by a supremely victorious, suddenly sole superpower, America, and suffered a deep national humiliation, got gradually resurgent under Putin who understood that its people wanted respect more than they wanted bread, with the exclusion of some docile oligarchs. Assertiveness paid off in Crimea and in Western Ukraine while sending shivers down spines from Warsaw to the Baltics. With the unwitting help of a new America that seems geopolitically unaware, Russia is now one of the game changers in the Middle East. 

China which was going through one of its darkest modern hours in Tiananmen Square while East Germans were climbing the wall managed to keep a strong control over its population and politics while creating a massive change in economic well being and keeping rising as a superpower. Many Chinese, having become consumers and being able to act like quasi-Westerners almost forgot that freedom was not part of the deal offered by Beijing, something that Hongkongers came to realise the hard way and that most of the West has tacitly accepted as an internal matter for a sovereign country.

Europe kept building itself gradually welcoming the former Central & Eastern Europe states (minus Ukraine and the ex-Yugoslav countries) in the hope of strengthening the European bloc, putting an emphasis on trade and the economy while a NATO led by a benevolent and self-serving America was ensuring the peace for the traders. Nearly 15 years after this major step, divergences were clear between the old and new members especially in terms of identity and nationhood that the latter had lost for so long. 

The Visegrad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) are now often taking a more nationalistic approach in terms of identity and immigration (like with the refugee crisis on 2015) than the older members. It is strange that the European stalwart supporters of nationalism, not to say populism are Poland and Hungary today with the Czechs not being far behind while Slovakia seems to be far more liberal (a wink to history for those who remember the Meciar years in the 1990s). It is sad to see Poland and Hungary being led by governments that are backed by solid majorities, supporting  populist policies that indeed gained power with local, mostly rural electorates (following the American and British models) while they were the beacons of democracy and freedom thirty years ago (Orban, true to Hungarian legacy, being quite a liberal politician for those who remember the 1990s). It should be noted however that both Warsaw and Budapest, like Prague, have recently elected liberal politicians in municipal elections, counter-balancing the image their governments have created.

There is a lack of memory in parts of Poland, Hungary and to some extent the Czech Republic. Poland, now the sixth economy in the EU, was for years the leading recipient of economic aid from Brussels (some will remember that a week after receiving a massive EU aid programme 20 years ago they ordered US fighters jets, the weight of history taking precedence over continental partnership and economic gratitude). When I walk on Petrin Hill near Mala strana in Prague I cannot help remembering 20 years ago the billboard stating that the whole redevelopment of the hill, which is a beautiful area in the center of Prague, was then being funded by the EU. Memories fade and newer generations want to be elected, using what they can to do so while one should not expect gratitude to be a guarantee of true partnership. It is also true that France and Germany (and Britain of course) took the EU as a way to keep leading the continent, if not on their own, at least as a concert of key nations, seeing probably these new members as docile partners that should belong but follow. The refugee crisis (many thanks to Bashar al- Assad who knew what he was doing, something we should never forget) created pressure points with the old members not helping enough the new ones but also forgetting the ones on the front lines like Italy, helping the populists using that strategic mistake to seize power. 

Macron, probably the only heavy weight leader in the EU as Merkel goes into the sunset, is right to emphasise that Europe needs to be redefined not only as a trading and economic club or bloc but as one also focused on foreign policy and defence, all the more given the vacuum if not disruptions created by today’s Washington. The choice is indeed between oblivion and leadership, if not sheer existence, playing a strategic role between America and China, both superpowers of our age that will lock horns in a world leadership contest. That Britain may chose to leave the EU at this time in history is a surprising sign of misunderstanding of the future directions of the world, all the more for a country that was once its leader. Macron, who increasingly speaks for Europe as much if not more than for France, the two agendas being intertwined (though not in the old French “European agenda” of old Présidents  but more as a straight European game plan for the whole bloc), is also right in re-engaging with Russia, while being vigilant of its developments, as Europe will not benefit from an isolated and economically weak but strong military power in search of a renewed  existential role in world affairs. Macron may be imperious to some but he has a vision for Europe and the words to say it. 

Europe is not perfect and is a project constantly in progress. It is likely that the gaps between the old and new members, like on the subject of immigration, will be reduced as can be judged by the far more restrictive steps taken by the French in this area so identity is indeed preserved and immigration becomes more selective. Macron’s opposition to enlargement for North Macedonia and Albania (which is supported by his “friendly” incoming EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyden, while many members states hide behind France) may be tactical and a bargaining chip with other member states for his “European Intervention Initiative” as well as his push for EU reform plans he would like to see hammered before any enlargement. It is also likely that voting mechanisms in the EU will be revisited, with the right of veto possibly no longer being a tool and the economic and population weight of members states playing a bigger, weighted role in decision-making, something that would make EU life more efficient and fair, this without weakening policy-making.  

Thirty years later, Europe has grown stronger (even with Brexit – look at the one voice in the negotiations) and should redefine itself so the citizens of its members states see it for what it is: a strong bloc of nations that should become even stronger and not the end of sovereignty, which it never was. We are far from a more federalist Europe which some would like (myself included) and we should work harder at making the EU seen by the citizens of its member states as a beneficial tool for prosperity, happiness and indeed sovereignty in an increasingly challenging world for small nations. 

We need to keep building a strong and independent Europe and living in our times, away even if respectful of past historical national achievements that are no longer relevant in the new world equation. We owe it to those who fought for freedom in the darkest years we remember this month and, more importantly, to future generations.  

Warmest regards,

Serge                      

9-11-19

Dear Partners in thought,

As we are at the seventieth anniversary of NATO, an alliance which underpinned Western security in the post-WW2 world, especially in Europe, we live through what appears as existential times for the organisation.  It’s been criticised, even attacked, from different quarters even though it is still a very potent and valid tenet of Western security. 

The truth is that while Trump, Macron and Merkel – Macron certainly with the most vigour this past week – criticise or defend NATO, all with their own agendas, they are all right – to some degree.

Trump is right when he lambasts some NATO members especially like Germany for not paying up their dues, namely 2% of GDP on defence. However he is terribly wrong in his actions when he takes decisions that harm the security of the Middle East with repercussions for Europe in letting Turkey unsettle the Syrian balance while forgetting the Kurds (the latter tragedy which will remain the cardinal sin of his presidency). Yes all NATO members should contribute to their own level but no the US should not let down its allies, as all senior American military leaders will agree, as this will have an effect on the very institution that is NATO, especially at an uncertain time for Europe with an overall erratic America, a Brexit-lost Britain, a resurgent Russia, an emboldened Iran and an unstoppably rising China.  

Macron is right in feeling that America has lost its ways under Trump (a “first” judging by all the efforts he did to accommodate the US President ever since the Bastille Day parade of 2017). The “brain dead” assertion may be too harsh but NATO is not only about money as Trump focuses on – it is about consistent leadership that is increasingly lacking in Washington. Macron is also right on stressing that Europe, though the EU (and of course with the indispensable Britain) should play more of a major and independent role in defence, which could only make NATO stronger, all this while normalising, as much as possible, relations with Russia.

Merkel is right in saying that Macron is too harsh about NATO today but she is too readily pliable with the current DC and should not forget that Germany has benefitted from many post-war developments like NATO, the EU or even the Euro without really playing a commensurate role in foreign policy and defence that would befit the leading EU member state – all under the old excuse, which was understandable in years past, of the war guilt. It would be nice if Germany was assuming more of a leading role in Europe outside the economic sphere and contributed to its powerful level. 

NATO is here to stay and will keep providing the needed and unique alliance for the West and Western Europe in particular at a time of an economically weak but militarily powerful Russia if only as the latter keeps respecting sheer power. NATO like other institutions built by America and its allies (that, as an aside, served American interests very well) is also a cement for what is the West. It is actually good that organisations like NATO be the subject of discussions as to their future, however intense, among its members as years go by and the world no longer ressembles (one would hope) the one we knew under the Cold War even if far more geopolitically complex going forward. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

8-11-19

Dear Partners in thought,

As Britain approaches yet another General Election, this one one of the most crucial in modern British history at a time when the two main parties have lost their compass and are suffering from very poor leadership, I thought it was good to state a few facts and offer some predictions as follows:

1. In the absence of a second referendum, this General Election will be first about Brexit and not really about leading the country.

2. Many if not most voters will vote according to the Remain and Leave divide and no longer for a party.

3. Very few voters will change their minds from their vote in June 2016 and will therefore vote tactically. Doggedness will prevail.

4. For nearly two years polls consistently showed a majority (52% to 54%) for Remain, a trend that will be exacerbated by many would have been Remain voters who went fishing in June 2016 (notably among the younger generations) and will be at the booth on 12th December.

5. Leave voters, oddly and broadly combining pauperised “left outs” from deprived Labour areas and very well-off, usually baby booming, conservatives in search of an existential project, will vote for some to regain a perceived lost sovereignty and others to protect what they see as a lost identity (and hopefully “vanished or stolen” jobs) while Remain voters, mostly younger and by and large cosmopolitan, living in prosperous large cities, will vote to ensure Britain does not experience a steep economic decline and keeps belonging to a leading bloc of nations. The two groups will keep not being on the same page as to what matters with a mix of noble and hateful emotions running high in the Leave camp while hard facts and mundane rationality will drive the Remainers. 

6. Leave voters will either vote for the Tories or the Brexit Party, still impervious to the economic decline (already 2.5% less GDP growth since June 2016 according to the FT’s sober Martin Wolf) and the many years ahead of reshaping trading and related arrangements globally including with the EU. Remainers will vote very tactically depending on each circonscription in play. 

7. While the Tories are in the lead in the polls and should finish first, the combination of Labour, Lib Dems and SNP may prove to be fatal to them across Britain, while they will suffer from the Brexit “No Deal” Party’s presence in 600 circonscriptions (if Farage’s current approach is likely maintained), as they took the mantle of British right wing nationalism if only for tactical Brexit and strategic party purposes.

8. Jeremy Corbyn’s “socialism” and associated economic programme, that may also speak to many Leave voters in poor areas of England and Wales, may prove on election day to be less toxic than the Tories would like it to be, all the more as the economic costs of Brexit may be now more strongly perceived in de-industrialised Leave constituencies that were traditionally anti-Tory precisely due to past conservative policies that affected the very industrial tissue of their areas. Johnson’s lavish plans to increase funding for the NHS and the police forces, thus buying the electorate, may prove to be too little too late while Labour’s public funding plans, while also substantial, may appear as more coherent even if in many ways radical under its current leadership.

9. As we can hear today, Boris Johnson will indeed need to be very lucky to win an outright majority and proceed with his Brexit while Jeremy Corbyn will just need not be too unlucky to secure victory by depriving the Tories from a majority, leading Johnson out of Number Ten, and thus setting the stage for a second referendum. At the very least and if less dramatic, the most likely outcome of 12th December will be a hung parliament. 

10. There could be also a “black swan” that polls have not yet captured. If Remain voters fully vote on Remain as their key driver the Lib Dems may create the biggest upset in modern British political history or at least lead a coalition with parties largely opposed to leaving the EU thus changing the course of history as we have known it thus far.  

These ten points admittedly come from a French-born European who sees the Brexit saga as the worst self-inflicted wound in modern British history and a loss-loss for Britain and the EU that came to existence only due to internal political party machinations and at a time where the two main parties reached an abyss in terms of vision and leadership. Now history – and indeed the people – will decide somewhat indirectly though in effect very directly which future they want for Britain – and to some extent Europe. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

31-10-19

Dear Partners in thought,

We live in a world when most of us do not face evil. We live in a world of social media and what is supposedly best for us (well, not me, given my low tech mantra). Yet there are terrible evils, killing people in medieval ways under the belief that they have a greater agenda, usually combining religion and a redress of history. They are backward, uneducated people who lined up the worst chapters of our world history, perverting the message of their own, good religions and should be thrown to the wolves. 

Last weekend a team of U.S. special forces took out the leader of ISIS that I will not honour by naming him. He died by blowing himself up while killing his three children. This man was true evil, to a point rarely known in our times and his demise was just. That his remains were thrown at sea shows how gentle we are. His demise will not put a stop to religious fundamentalism and its associated terror but is a useful reminder that evil can and should be stopped, even in our dire political times in the West. It is also a reminder that we should not surrender and fight for our values with the appropriate resolve and strength.

It is a time to congratulate the U.S. President, whoever he is and whatever his style, strategic geopolitical blunders and loose commentaries about the operation. This success will not change the fact he should not run the shiny city on the hill. However it is a time to come together. We should also come together regardless of our religions and beliefs while rejecting those that see Islam, a peaceful religion, as evil because of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist cohorts. We can only defeat evil by being truly together. 

America, through its warriors, has reminded us of times we longed for and why we should never lose hope in the great country that built the West and the values we knew.

We can say we are all Americans – this week, for sure.  

Warmest regards,

Serge

24-10-19

Dear Partners in thought,

We are dealing with two disasters in the making for their own countries and the world: Brexit and Donald Trump. It is time to put a stop to them while focusing on the real reasons why they came to the fore. 
Brexit is the most self-inflicted blow in British history, dividing a great nation, lowering its long-held position in the world, drastically hurting its citizens economically in the near- and long-term, including mostly those who voted for Leave in the Midlands, Northern England and Wales, while seeding the end of the United Kingdom with Scotland and Northern Ireland being leavers on their own. When we hear that too many delays should dictate an end to this saga, the point is lost. If Boris Johnson’s deal is finally approved in Parliament, it should be accompanied by an amendement that a confirmatory referendum be held both on the deal itself and the option of remaining in the European Union. In the end, a referendum, while contentious, would indeed be the least bad option and would give the people a voice based on facts as they are.

Donald Trump is an abomination for America and the world that was built on the sands of Normandy. Too many Republicans support him saying he is “a devil but he is our devil” (I am being polite here)  while some of my friends say that it is about “financial survival”, forgetting the principles and values that made America what it is and should be. Principals and values should not be compromised, all the more as we need a strong and leading America in an uncertain world. Trump’s foreign policy is another example of erratic behaviour that hurts the world, some of us very directly, not to mention allies like the Kurds. America is better than that and we need her more than ever so a vote for Trump in 2020 is not an option even with if a  “socialist” were his opponent as Trump II would carry the seeds of the end of America and the world we know, not to mention possibly unwarranted war.   

Let us realise that voters who made Trump and Brexit a reality (hopefully not yet for the latter) are so-called “left-outs” who felt that foreigners and globalisation were killing their national identities and blamed the out-of-touch elites and “experts” for their economic and social declines. The problem is not with foreigners or globalisation. The problem is with the widening wealth gap that our world has created, disenfranchising many people, while making the very rich even richer, while totally neglecting a huge segment of our populations. If we want to keep that great capitalism going, we need to take a serious look at how we create and manage wealth, starting with reasonable redistribution, avoiding insane tech listings and putting the value of hard work at the forefront of revenue creation, lest we want to implode as a Western society. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

13-10-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The Trump saga never ceases to amaze as there is never an end to what this unlikely President would do. “How low can one go” is the best way to describe his presidency at so many levels that we lose count – and get used to it, which is also very worrying. After having very clearly asked the Ukraine head of state to investigate Joe Biden’s son and very likely delaying military aid to Kiev pending his request being processed, Trump bluntly said publicly that China should investigate the Bidens, son and father. This latest development is clearly an effort to normalise unacceptable behaviour and making it seen as “business as usual” and not such big deal after all (so folks, really not impeachable). Trump just told us that the interference of foreign powers in electoral processes should be deemed “another day at the office” to borrow from his famous line about Boris Johnson’s parliament suspension rebuke by the British Supreme Court. The Anglo-saxon world is not doing well with the Australian PM and his assertions about the coal industry and climate change so he could be reelected, also knowing that his help was sought by Trump along the lines of China. And it would seem that Boris Johnson may have been asked to help his US counterpart too though in the blond brotherhood of “Twitterdum and Twaddledee”, to borrow from the Economist, this is once again quite “normal”.  

It is baffling to hear Republican-flavoured pundits and commentators trying hard to defend the President’s actions in total defiance to integrity and rationality. They know his actions were outlandish but will hold the partisan line before the national interest (as we see in the UK these days with the leading parties). It makes also one think about what would be “really” needed for Trump’s core base to realise that things should not be done by the US President however the populist and anti-elite message is pleasing to their ears. On that point I think we are coming to a point where we should all realise that “education” matters, not being afraid by that feeling and that perhaps people should after all pass a minimum test on key, basic democratic and constitutional matters before being able to vote. This might be an elitist take though the one man-one vote needs to be protected by ensuring that democracy is indeed strengthened and votes are more meaningful on our dark times. Food for thought, however delicate the recipe and even if the Founding Fathers would likely approve were they witnessing the current debasing saga.  

The Democrats finally went for an impeachment process even when House Leader Nancy Pelosi was very much against it on prior occasions, this to avoid the victimisation backlash of such a dire process. However there is a point when the number of “in your face” transgressions become too many and the basic principles upon which a country, which has been an opinion leader among nations, are trampled upon. There is a point where principles, unless they become lost, need to be upheld regardless of the political cost. It is right to impeach Trump after the latest blows to American identity and the Republicans (with which I identified for many years) should be ready to lose their souls forever (and likely their seats in the future, which in any case is not favouring them) or do the “right thing” and show the founding principles of their nation still matter. Mitt Romney is an example of that kind of Republican and someone who should actually run for the soul of his party in the GOP primary, which I always though he should.

It was interesting to see that it took Trump’s incredible backstabbing of an ally that went to war “also” to defend Western interests when he decided to drop his support for the Kurds as they were about to be assaulted by Turkey for senior Republican officials to raise strong concerns about core US foreign policy interests. Not only this move strengthened a dubious “partner”, formally a NATO member, but also an autocracy today but it showed that being an ally of the US like the Kurds were (actively when fighting the ISIS scourge) did not matter much in terms of being supported by Washington, all of this putting aside the likelihood that ISIS will be able to regroup, as if it was deprived of Califate land, it was never defeated, lurking below the radar in the region and continuing plotting cell-originated upheaval. If Trump thought that this move would take Erdogan away from Putin, he lost the big picture that mattered and endangered gravely US foreign policy interests, something even loyal Republicans, like Lindsey Graham (who was so much better a politician when his friend McCain was alive) could not stay silent about.   

One recent event on the primary trail may change the dynamics of the reckoning process for Trump. Bernie Sanders’s open heart surgery (not to mention his recent family loss that compounded a dreadful week) may not put him in good stead to continue the race with age and health being a very challenging duo now. If he leaves the race, his supporters will largely back Elizabeth Warren, which is closest to Sanders’s views. There is no doubt that this would help Warren win the nomination given the composition of primary voters and current polls where she already is taking a lead over Biden in early primaries. There is also no doubt that Trump would much prefer facing Warren than Biden so he could depict her as “a crazy old radical lady” which would play very well among his core male supporters. It is a fact that Warren, while beating Trump in run-off polls, fares far less well today than a Biden or even a Sanders. Food for thought, if the main goal is, as it should, to defeat Trump and get America and the world back to a real “normalcy”. However and having said all of this, even Warren would win against Trump today, which must make Mark Zuckerberg a bit worried given the Massachusetts’s senator plans for redefining a more “equitable” capitalism and breaking up Big Tech.    

Warmest regards,

Serge

26-9-19

Dear Partners in thought,

It is sad it had to take the Supreme Court in Britain to stress unequivocally that the PM had lied to the Queen, Parliament, the people and endangered British democracy, writing another abysmal chapter in the delusional and unhealthy Brexit saga. Who could believe that Boris Johnson had sound reasons for proroguing Parliament? While some thought that the end justified the means and that a small dent into British identity, the latter so dear to Brexiteers, would not matter, twelve judges unanimously declared to Britain and the world that values mattered and democracy should not be ignored. The irony, otherwise so British in nature, in that good episode of an otherwise deep tragedy was that Boris Johnson dared launching the most damning attack on British democracy while purporting to restore parliament’s sovereignty and escape the clutches of a supposedly “undemocratic EU” led by “unelected” bureaucrats. We should rejoice at the Supreme Court’s decision while worrying that we are more and more subjected to these kinds of attacks on our values, which we now take for granted so tired we become. The sight of Donald and Boris, quasi-partners in crime and strange lookalikes, in New York during the UN Annual Meeting, was very telling, especially when the US President simply said that the British PM’s unanimous Supreme Court rebuke was “another day at the office” – even if we should excuse him, his mind being lost amid the Ukrainian steppes this week. 

This turn of events may or may not trigger a change at Number Ten. It should, but adversity is a defining feature of the PM, who thrives on it like his role model though for vastly different reasons. Boris will fight if only to go down gloriously in flames. However this judicial decision has created once again another opportunity for Britain to reconsider Brexit and eventually, Article 50 extension permitting, have a direct say on what the people “really, really want” to borrow from the once popular Spice Girls.

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

2-9-19

Dear Partners in thought,

Reading about the economic programme of a potential Labour Government, it is clear that Boris Johnson cannot believe his good fortune – at first glance. A Labor Government following a Labour win in a snap general election would confiscate GBP 300bn of shares in 7,000 large companies and give them to workers, while it would provide a “right to buy” scheme for private tenants and tax landlords more highly – all while creating the most leftwing economic approach (management would not apply) in modern Western history. When contemplating the two main parties and thinking about the demise of traditional Western parties (a previous Interlude) one might wonder what is happening to Britain between her rock and her hard place. On one hand splendid isolation, economic decline and reduced clout at all levels. On the other, probably the same (if Brexit, especially of the hard kind, goes ahead) and return to quasi-Marxist times led by the great leadership we know (covered in a previous Book Note). One may also wonder if Labour’s economic policy grandstanding does not hide a desire to stay in opposition so unlikely they would actually win any election on that extreme platform. Theirs is certainly not the best way to win a general election, even facing a Conservative Party led by zealots that lost its soul and moorings. 

Such a dismal choice for British voters makes us think about what happened in France in 2017. The two leading “government” parties that had commanded 80%+ of all votes for decades did not make it to the last round of the presidential elections and the unknown Macron was elected against all odds. Those two main centre-left and centre-right parties continued their journey to oblivion, gathering together 15% of the votes in the European parliamentary elections last May. Clearly there may not be an Emmanuel Macron in Britain yet. However the Lib-Dems, pro-EU (even if it might be too late), led by a woman (not only reflecting our times but going back to some good times for Britain), could become a Macron-like movement, seizing the opportunity presented by two abysmal parties that no longer represent the British people (“Extremist” BoJo “elected” PM by 90,000 party members and two-thirds of Labour voters being center left). Even if Brexit were to happen through the autocratic decision of a PM who played with core values that were Britain, a LibDem victory (with Green support) that would be backed by a moderate cross-old party drive could make a great difference on the future of Britain. And even if they would not win with an outright majority due to the tight schedule involved to get their message across, they could be a senior partner in a LibDem-Labor coalition with the junior partner having had to put some water in their Leninist vodka. 

The LibDems (with Green support), if given a chance and the great opportunity presented to them, could be the French Macron. 

Warmest regards,

Serge