Border Control: a new short story

Dear Eric,

Creativity. Some people find it harder to be creative in an atmosphere of intolerance, division and even hatred.

Cheers,

R.
 
johnf04 said:
Isn't there a push for a second referendum?
Click to expand...


Only from the hard core ... most reasonable people ,including those who voted to remain , have accepted the fact that we`re leaving.

Even the BBC is slowly changing its anti Brexit rhetoric

Sure there are bound to be some hicups on the road and its only right that these are highlighted and discussed.

However some pro remain remain pundits and publications continue to mislead the public even if it means getting the story wrong.

The direction of travel is inevitable ,which is why its pointless to keep banging on about it.

What`s required now is frank and fair negotiations working towards a lasting mutually satisfactory agreement.

Both the UK and the EU are doing just that.
 
Michael Markey said:
Only from the hard core ... most reasonable people ,including those who voted to remain , have accepted the fact that we`re leaving.

Even the BBC is slowly changing its anti Brexit rhetoric

Sure there are bound to be some hicups on the road and its only right that these are highlighted and discussed.

However some pro remain remain pundits and publications continue to mislead the public even if it means getting the story wrong.

The direction of travel is inevitable ,which is why its pointless to keep banging on about it.

What`s required now is frank and fair negotiations working towards a lasting mutually satisfactory agreement.

Both the UK and the EU are doing just that.
Click to expand...
Dear Michael,

Hardly. You might more accurately say that most reasonable people are beginning to realize what a disaster it already is, never mind the fact that it's going to get worse, and that those who voted to leave are regretting their foolishness.

Otherwise, the Brexiteers would be totally in favour of a second referendum, as they know they would win and that it would lend legitimacy to the previously deeply flawed referendum.

The fact that they're terrified even of letting Parliament debate the terms of leaving, let alone putting those terms to a second referendum, means that my perception of "reasonable people" is somewhat at variance with yours.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Roger

That`s not how its increasingly looking from the UK perspective.
Far from being a disaster its actually been very good for the UK economy .
The Government is running a surplus in July for the first time in 15 years and all other indicators are looking good aswell.

I have no intention however of going over the pros and cons ...they have been rehashed time and time again.

The referendum result is what it is and I suspect that you would be arguing the same (at least I hope that you would) to me if it had gone the other way.

I fear that the concept of an EU is a busted flush whether we stayed or not .

I willl leave you , if I may ,with Daniel Hannan `s piece in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iners-determined-hate-brexit-become-detached/

Pleased to see you back on your feet again and punching your weight .

Best

Michael
 
All this Exit/Remain debate proves again how divided UK is on the subject of EU membership. That is in stark contrast of how the rest of EU feels about the membership of their countries. Many Brexit supporters expected and predicted that other countries will follow UK, but Netherlands, France proved they were so wrong. And Germany will be the next strong pro-EU vote (supporting CDU). One can see anti establishment, anti migration sentiments (to various degrees), but it's not too much anti EU. They understand that EU is full of issues, but it's easier to solve them in EU rather than being alone outside. What's my point? I tend to think that culturally UK has probably always been so different and with the strong acceptance of Anglo-Saxon economic (and social) model it is continuing drifting further and further from the rest of EU where social welfare model is still very much dominant. So it was probably unavoidable. I guess it is pointless to discuss pros and cons (stay vs leave) because we even use different denominators. Government surplus (that Michael mentions), investments, GDP growth tells little if you look at Happiness Economics. So....
 
I think that`s a good assesment of the situation Valdas.

The EU was acceptable to the UK when it was a trading block .... that`s what we joined .... but when that slowly morphed into a political union the cultural differences began to show.

There`s very little European content on the main broadcasting channels in the UK .
The prime time BBC news broadcasts live jointly from London and Washington.
That`s where we look to for economic indicators not Europe.

You`d think that they`d cover Paris and Berlin but they don`t .... unless something unfortunate happens.

I think that it would be better for both concerned if we changed the arrangement and got back to that trading agreement.
 
I think you will find the UK to be divided over more than just this. Funny in a way because they are a (forced) economic and political union that is older than the EU. I'm really curious how they will solve the Irish question.

You cannot get that trading arrangement back because as it is now, this is linked to the political arrangement. You have free trading but it comes with free movement of goods AND people and a common currency is part of it. And if you have that then other common things are just sensible. If those can flow freely then the logic is to treat people similar so you need common laws, tax regulations and other.

Now I do not find the excuse " we joined when it was just a trading block" acceptable. It was then already on the table where this was going. Some of the things that were discussed then are still not implemented, like the european constitution which is planned since 1957...
 
One doesn`t necessarily follow another and I think that the Irish question will be resolved.

We can disagree on the trading block issue.

What hasn`t been mentioned in all this discussion about facts is temperament and culture .

That`s what it really comes down to and Valdas nailed it in his post.
I would only add that you should not underestimate an Island mentality with ,obviously, clearly defined borders.

A phrase that Roger used some time back and I don`t recall when or where but it stuck in my mind .

He said something to the effect that you should not underestimate the effect of simmering resentment.
I`ve probably misquoted him but he was spot on.

This has been manifest for years now in the UK .
Its cultural and as such has little to do with the sort of issues we might talk about here.
 
Michael Markey said:
One doesn`t necessarily follow another and I think that the Irish question will be resolved.

We can disagree on the trading block issue.

What hasn`t been mentioned in all this discussion about facts is temperament and culture .

That`s what it really comes down to and Valdas nailed it in his post.
I would only add that you should not underestimate an Island mentality with ,obviously, clearly defined borders.

A phrase that Roger used some time back and I don`t recall when or where but it stuck in my mind .

He said something to the effect that you should not underestimate the effect of simmering resentment.
I`ve probably misquoted him but he was spot on.

This has been manifest for years now in the UK .
Its cultural and as such has little to do with the sort of issues we might talk about here.
Click to expand...
Dear Michael,

The intriguing part, though, is what caused that simmering resentment; which is also, of course, found in the United States and led to Trump's election. There are two possibilities. One is that it really is die to Wicked Foreigners, immigrants, and the like, and the other is that it is entirely home-grown and the product of deliberate (or simply incompetent and heartless) national government policy.

All countries live under much the same economic constraints, and face similar competition from low-wage economies such as China; so how can some handle it, and others not? Among rich countries, the ones with the most resentment are the ones with the greatest inequality, which is essentially a political choice.

This (slightly surprisingly) brings us back to rangefinder cameras. Leicas are made in Germany by skilled and well-paid workers. So are many other things: (some) Zeiss lenses and many other Zeiss products; motor cars; machinery and machine tools; chemicals; food; rubber....

A truly remarkable fact is that manufacturing is still more important in Switzerland than finance: http://www.sccij.jp/news/overview/d...witzerland-manufacturing-bigger-than-banking/ -- yes, Alpa cameras are staggeringly expensive, but it's a very profitable company.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Michael,

The intriguing part, though, is what caused that simmering resentment; which is also, of course, found in the United Stares and led to Trump's election. There are two possibilities. One is that it really is die to Wicked Foreigners, immigrants, and the like, and the other is that it is entirely home-grown and the product of deliberate (or simply incompetent and heartless) national government policy.

All countries live under much the same economic constraints, and face similar competition from low-wage economies such as China; so how can some handle it, and others not? Among rich countries, the ones with the most resentment are the ones with the greatest inequality, which is essentially a political choice.

This (slightly surprisingly) brings us back to rangefinder cameras. Leicas are made in Germany by skilled and well-paid workers. So are many other things: (some) Zeiss lenses and many other Zeiss products; motor cars; machinery and machine tools; chemicals; food; rubber....

A truly remarkable fact is that manufacturing is still more important in Switzerland than finance: http://www.sccij.jp/news/overview/d...witzerland-manufacturing-bigger-than-banking/ -- yes, Alpa cameras are staggeringly expensive, but it's a very profitable company.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

And that's where I see the hypocrisy of Anglo-Saxon economy model - business influence on political decisions leading to low wage proliferation (either moving labour intensive manufacturing to "cheap" countries or inviting low wage immigrant labour) with the aim to increase "competitiveness" (in fact - profit) and then complaining that immigrants "took our jobs" and China engages in unfair competition.
 
valdas said:
And that's where I see the hypocrisy of Anglo-Saxon economy model - business influence on political decisions leading to low wage proliferation (either moving labour intensive manufacturing to "cheap" countries or inviting low wage immigrant labour) with the aim to increase "competitiveness" (in fact - profit) and then complaining that immigrants "took our jobs" and China engages in unfair competition.
Click to expand...
If this is true (and it does rather look that way), we now have the question of WHY the UK and the USA adopted what you call the "Anglo-Saxon" model. Is it because most economics texts (in which the model is assiduously mistaken for the real world) are written in English? Is it because of a blend of populism and consumerism? Is it because both have a two-party system with first-past-the-post voting?

It is a puzzle.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If this is true (and it does rather look that way), we now have the question of WHY the UK and the USA adopted what you call the "Anglo-Saxon" model. Is it because most economics texts (in which the model is assiduously mistaken for the real world) are written in English? Is it because of a blend of populism and consumerism? Is it because both have a two-party system with first-past-the-post voting?

It is a puzzle.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I know that this "Anglo-Saxon" definition is a significant oversimplification/generalisation, but we all understand what I mean. WHY? I really don't know and I would like to read some serious authors who would propose such analysis.
 
Dear Roger ,Valdas

Whilst I think that there are compelling economic and social reasons why we should leave the EU I agree that they are rooted in what Valdas has identified as the Anglo Saxon model.

The UK took a big lurch in that direction when it adopted the American corporate business model

I was there at the time ,seconded to an American company ,working for HMG and let me say that it didn`t suit me one bit but the UK Gov of the day were mighteley impressed and thirty years later I see that system fully embedded into our public services.

The continental model looks very odd in comparison.

Why the resentment you ask.
For resentment of any kind to grow it needs fertile soil

"Fog in the channel -Continent cut off " is still the preveiling attitude.

You made the analogy with the election of Donald Trump .
It may not therefore surprise you that that was greeted with great joy , certainly among (you`ll notice that I use the old English and not the middle English variant ) the people I know.

As they often say here .... go figure.
 
Yokosuka_Mike said:
It's not related at all. Frankly I wish they'd take it off line or to some other political forum. Unless of course they'd post a few pictures of said Border Control.
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

See posts 82 and 90. There is more to photography than arguing about which version of the Summilux is better. What you're saying is, "I'm not interested, so no-one should be allowed to discuss it anywhere I might conceivably go."

As Fujilove points out,

Surely if a thread bores or annoys, you can simply not read it? Personally, I avoid every thread on every forum on the Internet in which people discuss lens 'sharpness'.

Why would you want other people not to chat about things that interest and stimulate them?

The psychology of Brexit is fascinating and tragic. A perfect subject to discuss.

Cheers,

R.
 
^ Thanks for the pomposity, it's made me rethink the the whole politics in a camera/photography forum situation. Much appreciated.

Cheers!
Mike
 
valdas said:
I know that this "Anglo-Saxon" definition is a significant oversimplification/generalisation, but we all understand what I mean. WHY? I really don't know and I would like to read some serious authors who would propose such analysis.
Click to expand...

I can't claim to have the answer to your question, but I think there is a connection going back to earlier political philosophers in the Anglosphere, such as Mill, who have put more emphasis on the individual and its freedoms vis a vis the state, compared to continental contemporaries, who valued the freedom of the community to decide its own fate (freedom as participants of the polity) more. This distinction has been made by Isaiah Berlin, who called the first "negative liberty" and the second "positive liberty". It would seem to me that there's a connection to the way that democracy has been achieved: In a centuries-long, more or less continuous struggle between different, often noble, parties mostly versus the crown in Britain, and through more sudden events, with the main fault line between the common man and nobility (or a dictatorship in the countries that were later to the party), on the continent.

What you call the "Anglo-Saxon model" certainly is just the same as neoliberalism, no? It certainly is also quite influential on the continent, although perhaps not as dominant. More of a continuum in the implementation of policies of that type between different countries it would seem, rather than a dichotomy. Anyway, in GB only since Thatcher. In other Anglo-Saxon countries beside the US? Not more than in continental Europe I believe.

A good and accessible, but scientifically grounded read about the history of that paradigm is Colin Crouch, The Strange Non-Death of Neo-Liberalism. I don't remember if he tries to specifically explain why it was adopted more in some place than others.
 
retinax said:
What you call the "Anglo-Saxon model" certainly is just the same as neoliberalism, no? It certainly is also quite influential on the continent, although perhaps not as dominant. More of a continuum in the implementation of policies of that type between different countries it would seem, rather than a dichotomy. Anyway, in GB only since Thatcher. In other Anglo-Saxon countries beside the US? Not more than in continental Europe I believe.

A good and accessible, but scientifically grounded read about the history of that paradigm is Colin Crouch, The Strange Non-Death of Neo-Liberalism. I don't remember if he tries to specifically explain why it was adopted more in some place than others.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think for the most part it is neo-liberalism and UK and US are probably leading countries in terms of adoption of neo-liberal policies. It is influencial in Europe, you are right, but there are also quite strong social-democratic traditions and the overall balance is quite different. You are also right that in UK things started changing under Thatcher, US was also different in 60thies. Reading Stiglitz and Reich gives quite good picture how it was changing in US and what forces were driving it. But Europe (especially Nordics) remained more resistent to those trends. Probably one can find many reasons... but thanks foR Colin Crounch link, I will check it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top