Democracy – John Vincent

Importance of UK-US State visits

I agree with him on numerous issues. In this case I think he’s wrong. Not only that but he’s making himself look just like the ambulance chasing willow-the-wisps Badenoch and Farage.

This morning, Ed Davey’s argument is that the planned United Kingdom (UK) State visit to the United States (US) should be cancelled. That’s withdrawing from the meeting between the King and the President. By the way, Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrat political party in the UK.

I don’t buy the argument that King Charles meeting President Trump will be a public embarrassment. Let’s put aside any thought of my personal feeling towards either man. It’s not a case of who they are as much as it is what they represent. They have met before as Head of State for the UK and US. So, it’s not as if the situation is a complete unknown.

A few points to make on the subject.

One point concerns the role of Head of State. It’s inevitable that through the course of their work they will from time to time be embarrassed. Reflecting on Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she dined with some notable unpleasant leaders not as a matter of personal choice but as a matter of duty. In many ways, it’s part and parcel of being a Head of State.

Two. This year is like no other. The US marks 250-years of independence. It would be incredible if one of the parties involved, the UK, chose to ignore this pivotal event. The current US President is inclined to hype but here’s an event that needs no hype. It’s one of the most significant dates in global history. The US Declaration of Independence is of monumental importance.

Three. Regardless of the personalities involved, the UK and US share democratic values. Fine, with different interpretations of what that means. Fundamentally, despite differences, there’s common ground which will, I hope, always be there regardless of who has the top job. Our international partnership is an inseparable bond, yes, with its inevitable ups and downs.

Four. There’s a fair chance that these Heads of State will not only talk to each other but may listen to each other. That dialogue has the potential to do some good in the world. It’s a dialogue that needn’t be trapped by everyday political struggles and tensions. To me, it’s fascinating to speculate on topics like global environmental concerns, where the two individuals clearly have an entirely different perspective.

To be topical. The last 250-years record a great deal of involvement of the UK and US is the affairs of the Middle East. Whether this has been wise, or not, is a different matter.

In the 1950s, both countries kicked off the oil industry in that part of the world. Both have had a hand in what has developed since. Our economies are tied to oil as a result. That legacy is not easy to walk away from even if change is inevitable.

Dysfunctional Culture of UK Politics

It’s as true today as it’s aways been. Well, that sound like a famous bread avert. The phrase “as good today as it’s always been,” was used for years by one notable bread maker in the UK. A memorable slogan that painted a picture of tradition and continuity.

What I’d like to do is to take the word “good” out of the equation. I’m not talking about our daily bread. Or the need to meld tradition with a modern industrial reality. However, there is an enduring appeal when it comes to selling ideas. A linking with some mythical golden age.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader whose memory is not entirely lost in the mists of time, was not a fan of the Westminster culture[1]. That’s the political culture that pervades the British Parliament and its environs.

He shared the view of many British people that Westminster is grossly “out-of-touch” with life as it’s lived across the nation. Our democratic institutions often alienated people. Not by intention but just by being what they are and acting the way they do. The core of British politician’s concerns come across as detached and insular. More tied up in big egos, infighting, and inflated pompousness. Protecting their own interests.

Now, I know the insipid excuse is to say – surely, politicians are like that throughout the world. Aren’t we lucky to have such ancient and noble traditions. A heritage that others admire.

Paddy knew what he was talking about having been a Member of Parliament (MP) a long time. I first met him in the 1980s, when he was a young idealistic newly elected MP. He was the guest speaker at an evening event in Cheltenham. Full of ambition and vitality.

This week, neither of the two largest political parties in the UK covered themselves with glory. Quite the opposite in fact. It was not pleasant to see or hear.

Labour became a stuck record. Vacillating and dithering. Increasingly then sound like their predecessors. It’s a kind of Westminster conditioning. A bland mediocrity that seeps out of the gothic towers of Parliament. Supporters of Labour twist and turn with despair.

The Conservatives are in more trouble for a whole host of reasons. Not least their past performance. What we are witnessing is a peculiar dance by their leader. It involved constantly looking over her shoulder and spinning around at the same time.

Whether we like it or not the problem is our problem. With our institutions becoming ever more dysfunctional over a period of decades the door is open to extremist forces. The more we pretend that Westminster is working the more voters look elsewhere.

The British media are no help in this respect. Instead of shining a light on a dysfunctional culture they race to be part of it. Getting excited at every crash and upset. Every scandal and broken promise. Building careers in the same way as the politicians they report on.

There’s no easy answer. First, it’s important to recognise the problem.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashdown-says-outoftouch-westminster-alienates-voters-disillusionment-could-lead-to-extremism-liberal-democrat-leader-warns-1493502.html

Life in the 22nd Century

It’s not an original thought but science, and its advancement, is like a venerable oak tree. Roots spread over a large area, are not seen, but are critical to the health of the whole tree. Branches expand as the tree grows. Branches divide, some branches fade and others gain ever more strength. A tree that lives as long as a civilisation, ever changing.

I put this view forward only to admit that there are flaws with this way of thinking. For a start, in the past, a branch of science may have been pursued in a pure manner. Accumulating ever more knowledge on a specific subject. Now, the branches of science have become far more intertwined. Complexity is a given.

This makes a futurologist job harder. It’s no good to dream along straight lines. To see progressive development as the most likely direction. In the past, there was mileage in projecting forward along a clear line of thinking. Take for example the opening up of the atomic world. Futurologist in the 1950s imagined a world of limitless energy. Inexhaustible sources of electrical power that would be cheep and available to all. For good or ill, the age of plenty didn’t happen. That doesn’t reduce the importance of fundamental discoveries. It cautions us in extrapolating from a simple beginning to a fantastic new world.

What will life in the 22nd Century be like? I can say with certainty that I will not see the year 3000. Well, that is unless the cryogenics of science fiction stories soon becomes reality.

One approach is to look back 75 years. Compare and contrast. Then look forward 75 years. That is factoring in an acceleration in discoveries and the exploitation. And as I’ve alluded above not being shy of growing complexity.

This is again an approach to be taken with a fair degree of caution. Back in the 1950s there was talk of electronic brains, as the computer emerged as a viable and useful machine. What was imagined then is now quite different. That use of the word “brain” isn’t common parlance. Instead, the advent of so-called artificial intelligence is becoming everyday language.

Another set of cautionary factors are trying to guess the branches of the tree that will decay and fall. What seems promising based on current technology only to be bypassed by discovery and innovation. Here I’m thinking that the building of massive power-hungry data farms may be a technological cul-de-sac. Vulnerable and hugely expensive physical infrastructure that’s out of date the minute it’s switched on.

Each of us has a brain that weighs a lot less than a room full of cabinets of conventional electronics. Nature manages vast amounts of data without a power station in tow.

In the year 3000, I maintain we will have a rich and rewarding intellectual life. It will be different in form, although the things that amuse and entertain us may not be so different. The themes of a Greek play are still likely to be echoed in the stories of the next millennia.

Artificial intelligence will be a junk yard term. The whole of the world of data communication and processing will be hidden under layers of obscuration. It’s possible that a form of agent will be overseeing the mechanisms for providing the services we demand. The great challenge for democracies will be how to ensure that agent works for the public good. Not so easy.

Manchester

Crunching numbers after a British by-election is rather like taking one racehorse win and saying that all races will be won by that horse in future. There’s one or two who get hysterical. A test of public opinion, in one spot on the globe, is a good indicator. It’s not an absolute pointer to every future event.

How can I possibly disagree with Sir John Curtice[1] this morning on the BBC. He’s that human hardy perennial of domestic election analysis. Number one guru that the media runs to. A track record for an on the money sum-up.

In essence, the British electorate wishes to support candidates who can articulate their concerns. No prevarication, all manner of obfuscation or jam tomorrow speeches. Preferably tailored to the location where they stand.

Sir John is thinking like this John. In moments, as per yesterday in Manchester[2], clarity matters. True, that in a by-election it’s easier to do for a candidate who carries little political baggage. A fresh set of well-presented phrases and a new broom. A relatable individual.

Not for one moment do I believe that the Green Party will surge forward so powerfully as to become a national leader. What may happen is that, with the fragmentation of the British political landscape, the Greens will play a bigger part than they have in the past.

And you know what? As a liberal, I’m fine with that shift. Balance is so important if positive change is to happen. Representation means just that – representation. If the Greens say the exact opposite to the Reform Party, which mostly they do, then they will occupy the two ends of the classical normal distribution – the bell curve.

Perhaps, I need to be careful with this basic analysis. My presumption is that most people are not highly involved in everything party political. That on the typical doorstep often the key task is not to engage in detailed debate but to remind people that there is an election taking place. That the tie to traditional voting patterns continues to weaken.

The last one on my list is perhaps the biggest. Gone are the huge factories and industrial heartland that provided the Labour Party with their core support. Gone are the dependents of the shire country manor houses that provided the Conservative Party with their core support.

In 2028 or 2029[3] the make-up of the British electorate will have changed markedly. Seems obvious to say – doesn’t it, but politicians love to fight the last war not the next one. The political landscape will have shifted. Traditional voting patterns will have further disolved. There will be no let-up in the dynamic nature of public discourse. A small number of big issues will dominate the campaigns of the parties able to make an impact.

Clarity will matter. Distinctiveness will matter. Relatability will matter.

In the background, a bucket load of past performance and costed polices will be chewed over by professional commentators. That will not be the deciding factor. At the end of this decade there’s a break away coming. Busting out of past patterns. Setting new horizons.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

[2] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/

[3] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/topics/parliament-and-constitution/general-elections

Empowering Youth: Voting Rights at 16 Years Old

There’s good reason to be cautious. Explanations about what should or should not happen to young people are so often made by people who have long forgotten what it was like to be young. It’s a while ago, I’m talking about 30-years ago. Sitting as a Country Councillor listening to other Councillors pontificating about education policy in a way that bore no relation to the reality of the time. That’s way before mobile phones and social media took hold of our lives.

It was something to behold, when listening to erudite people who were then at the age I am now, recollecting their youth as a way of justifying a point of view about education policy. It was worse than that, in that those privileged Councillors were often the products of a private education. Talking about growing up with a nanny, prep-school and a notable public school as a background didn’t inform discussion about how much public money to spend school repairs.

Debate moves with time, only that the tone of debate doesn’t always move on. In one case it’s whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 years old or the that a ban on social media should be enforced until 16 years old.

Here’s my two-pennyworth. The range of maturity of those of the age of about 16 years or so is large. Naturally, there’s a mighty steep learning curve where individuals find their feet. Some are more rebellious than others and that attribute maybe a passing phase or a deep part of their character.

It’s the age where it’s possible to start in the world of work. To start an apprenticeship. To get a National Insurance number. To pay taxes. Going with – no taxation without representation – to me that justifies a young person having a say in what happens in their society. In other words, getting to vote.

Even if their opinions and political views are developing and there’s much experience to gain, it’s likely that those who are savvy enough to make the next steps in education or work should have that right. If they start with the habit of voting, there’s a better chance that they will continue.

It’s possible for a 16-year-old to vote in some local Scottish and Welsh elections. Today, they cannot vote in UK Parliamentary elections. That needs to change.

Numerous right-wing commentators state their objection citing the word – maturity. That fact of the matter is that they clearly haven’t ever done any doorstep campaigning. That’s canvasing for a candidate during an election. Frequently, the job is merely to remind people that there is an election taking place. It’s not to enter debate about the pros and cons of a candidate, their party or their policies. Let’s just say, without being too disrespectful, that a great many 16-year-olds are far more aware, energetic and informed than the average citizen.

Also, I don’t understand what right-wing commentators fear. There’s likely to be a significant number of younger people who will take their point of view. Much as I might find that case disagreeable there’s a huge panoply of reasons for voting. It’s not a static factor.

At 16 years old in the UK, a person can legally leave school. Then they should have a say.

Political Landscape

One of the motivators in politics is that prospect of the shining city on the hill. The ability of an able politician to articulate a vision of a future where aspirations are met, harmony pervades the land and the world becomes a better place for all. Naturally, this expression has religious originals. That interweaving of religion and politics is hardly new. It’s us. It’s us humans who give form to our desire to see our communities thrive and adversity overcome.

However, this ability to project hope isn’t the only tool in the politician’s toolbox. The other side of the coin is fear. Sadly, this gets used just as much as in rhetorical flurries and backroom decisions making. As the week has passed so there’s been a fair amount of both.

I like to think that, of the two, hope transcends. It is not an even coin. Our in-built propensity to strive regardless of the barriers and failures along the way, that’s powerful.

What am I saying? It’s that loosing sight of the shining city on the hill and getting stuck in the weeds of everyday gloom and despondency, that’s the monster problem.

Scandals will come and go. It’s a national preoccupation. That’s not to say that such each and every one deserves significant attention. In the most recent one, involving the UK Prime Minister (PM) and a prominent former Labour politician, there’s clearly much work to do.

It seems to me that the whole process of making appointments to significant national posts needs a thorough review. The discretionary powers that a PM has are a key part of the job, but that exercise of power without sufficient scrutiny has led to dangerous errors being made.

Thus, we have a serious man who espoused a brilliant future, at the last UK General Election, only to deliver more of the same. True, the current PM hasn’t yet plummeted the depths of the Johnson or Truss era. A wave of relief sounded across the nation when those two Conservative politicians were effectively banished.

Righteousness is not something that sits well with a cynic. And our daily News loves to adopt a cynical tone. Every journalist must have a streak of it running through them like a stick of rock. On the positive side, in many ways when political scrutiny fails it’s the News media that we depend up. Maybe to shine a light on the less than shiny city on the hill.

At this moment in early 2026 there’s good reason to be concerned. Now, at the dispatch box in the House of Commons we have two gladiators who want to make mincemeat of the opponent but are each covered in a disagreeable mess. Both as a legacy of incidents that their Party has had a hand in. It’s easy to say – twas ever so. Only that’s not good enough in 2026.

It’s as if both Party leaders have wadded through a muddy smelly swamp to meet face to face. To meet covered in mud, slime and weeds that they have dragged with them. Not an attractive sight. Neither in a position to project the prospect of a shining city on the hill. Credibility is low with both parties. These are strange times.

[What might happen if more than 45 Conservative MPs jump to the Reform Party? Crossing the house could become an avalanche breakdown. Will we see the Liberal Democrats as His Majesty’s official Opposition? That would surely put the cat amongst the pigeons.].

Should Parliament Relocate?

I wouldn’t for one moment propose that the palace of Westminster be demolished. It’s an iconic landmark. No, my point is that the building is entirely ill-suited to be a 21^st century parliament building. What served well in the Victorian period now restraints and stultifies its occupants.

Across the great river Thames is another iconic building, London’s Country Hall. That’s no longer an important seat of local government. Throughout the country there are hundreds of former Town Halls, now put to other uses. Lots of listed buildings that are rightly preserved as part of our unique British heritage.

I’m reacting to the News story about the cost of repairs to the Houses of Parliament. Possibly six-decades of work at the cost of tens of billions of pounds. Parliamentarians, who may never see the work finished, will need to decide on different potential courses of action.

Let’s be clear. Six-decades ahead takes us to the year 2086. Those at school now will, they hope, be retired as the final lick of paint is applied. Not only that but who on earth can realistically predict the final cost to the taxpayer of such a never-ending project?

This brings home what real long-term planning is all about. Do we adopt a myopic vision based on sentimentality and stick with the existing palace of Westminster or take a different approach.

Buildings, their structure and form, do shape the way we behave. What would be the point of celebrated architecture if such was irrelevant to the human experience. This has been understood in both Germany and Australia.

British architect Norman Foster’s reconstruction of the Reichstag in Berlin[1], finished in 1999, transformed a 19th-century building into a modern, transparent seat of democracy.

The architecture of Parliament House[2] in Canberra is well worth a tour. To be able to walk over the hill, and on top of the building is a profound statement that suites Australians so well.

My view is that an ambitious nation would look at the next sixty years as an opportunity to forge an identity suited to the future not the past.

So, British Parliamentarians move out of Westminster and look for another solution.

The great River Thames is part of our national story in a way that other rivers are not. The River Severn may be longer, not by a lot, but it doesn’t have the navigation that made the Thames and the city of London so pivotal in our national story. What other locations on the River Thames would fit the bill? Likely more central but remaining well connected. My suggestion might shock some people and create an instant rejection.

Our national story is one of roads, rivers, canals and railways. Moving inland along the path of the River Thames, a fast efficient railway service leads to a large town, not yet a city. The ruins of Reading Abbey, founded by King Henry I in 1121 “for the salvation of my soul,” reminds me that a sense of continuity has its place. That’s apt. For the salvation of the souls of our elected representatives, why not choose Reading.

I’m not saying the famous Reading Gaol[3] could be repurposed. Anyway, it’s been sold. But there are numerous sites in that town where a new parliament building would shine a beacon of hope.

[1] https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/reichstag-new-german-parliament

[2] https://www.aph.gov.au/Visit_Parliament

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Reading_Gaol

A Dark Legacy

Controversy is bubbling away like a broken pressure cooker suck on a high gas flame. I’m just writing about the words spoken in Parliament, yesterday. The case of the British “prince of darkness” is one for the textbooks. This man, who acquired the title “prince of darkness[1]” long ago, is Peter Mandelson. Now, formerly a Labour Party member, he’s slithered through political life, in the UK and Europe, dragging controversy everywhere he’s been.

Honestly, I don’t want to write about this politician. A casebook study of a follower of Niccolò Machiavelli’s brutal manual for would-be leaders. Being a “prince” in this century, and the last, seems to bring out the very worst in those who are given the title. It’s fine for fiction to be dotted with so called “evil genius” characters but in real life these are people best avoided.

At the heart of the recent News is not just a betrayal. It’s the habits and lives of powerful people acting in a way that assumes an immunity from any accountability. Evidence that greedy people collude behind closed doors to line their own pockets. That morals go out of the window.

I continue to believe that most politicians in the UK Parliament are motivated to make the world a better place. They go to Westminster to try to make a difference. To fulfil that adage to: “Try and leave this world a little better than you found it.”

I make this assertion not in a naive way. Afterall, I’ve stood for election more than a few times. Quite a lot, in fact. Over several decades. Sadly, never with any great amount of success. Often meeting people on the same journey. Most of those people I met are putting themselves forward to right some wrong or use their expertise for the public good and make a difference.

At the heart of the recent News is a moral vacuum too. This vulgar belief that ingratiating oneself with unethical wealthy individuals has no consequence. Instead of protecting the public interest and exposing corruption, a considerable number of influential men have chosen to either turn a blind eye or adopt disgraceful practices.

On first meeting, I admit that it’s not always possible to know of the evils that another person may have committed. What’s shocking now is the distinct lack of curiosity that seems to have been exhibited by many prominent people. That’s the generous (Christian) interpretation.

The exhibition of misogyny revealed in the information that has been released in the US is disgusting. It’s way beyond that simple expression. If we are to move forward as a society these behaviours must be eradicated. To leave this world a little better than we found it, change must not just be a word that’s sprinkled into public speeches. Behavioural change must materialise.

Yes, we all have a responsibility in this respect. No looking the other way or pretending that unacceptable behaviours are not happening. Call them out. Especially those with a public voice.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/prince-of-darkness/

Reflections: Decade Since Brexit

Ten years ago, the world was a different place. “The past is a foreign country”. That bit is true. I still had an apartment is Cologne. Although, that phase of my life was coming to an end. The first two months of 2016 were about wrapping up the loose ends. Deregistering, as is the way when leaving German. Coming to a settlement with my landlord. Packing up and moving back to the UK. Saying goodbye to my regular haunts. Saying goodbye to a wonderful city.

Being an astute watcher of the UK political landscape, I could see that a vail of discontent was hovering over my homeland. There was a frustration amongst those in government. Can this endless debate about the UK’s place in Europe be resolved? Can it be knocked on the head once and for all?

The UK Prime Minister (PM), David Cameron was sitting on a small majority after the General Election of 2015. Conservatives were nervous but wanting to retake the agenda by trying to put to bed the Europe question. As it turns out Cameron made a grave mistake. He entertained the notion of a national referendum to advise the government on what to do next. An act that was uncommon to the UK’s normal way of doing business.

Probably one of the most foolish political acts a UK PM has taken in a very long time. Naturally, in 2016 few had an idea of the chaos that would be unleashed by this attempt at quelling internal Conservative Party wranglings. It’s true that these wranglings were not new. Just perpetual or should I say perennial.

My return to the UK wasn’t a celebration of the achievements we had made in Europe. That collectively we were in a much better place than before. That we had build something to be proud of. No, it was more of a submersion into an angry and emotional row. A heated row littered with misinformation and just simple run of the mill nonsense.

As I write this it’s plainly evident that the experiment, that was Brexit, damaged the country. Not only that but it resolved nothing. Instead of settling an issue it stirred up animosities and tribal conflicts. Today’s soap opera on the right-wing of UK politics is evidence enough of unresolved rivalries and ideological divides. An insular mindset and unresolvable differences.

In January 2016, there was no practical plan to leave the European Union (EU). It was almost unthinkable. Surely sensibility would prevail. That’s the political trap that Cameron fell into. Dare I say an almighty display of his cultured public-school arrogance. Convinced that if arguments were put to the public authoritatively, logically and rationally a remain result would be a simple foregone conclusion. That the political risks were manageable. That’s how wrong a man in power can be.

Moving on a decade. Yes, it is that long. Lots of water under the bridge. To the idiots on stage now, I say: the UK is not broken. It surely isn’t in as good a place as it could be. Had Brexit not taken place then we’d all be much more prosperous. We would be contenting with continuity. That includes squabbling right-wingers, but the fact is that they will never ever desist.

What’s sad is that the opinion polls say that a significant number of people want more of the same. More nonsense from the people who brought us Brexit in the first place. More from those doomsters and has-beens who complain without any realistic ideas of how to solve problems. A karnival of conmen.

Now, in the UK we have two right leaning political parties that are almost the same. One being the Conservatives and the other Reform. Each trying to outdo each other to attract the same voters. Stirring up discontent wherever they can find it. Projecting a negative image of the country whenever they speak. Feuding in a way that should convince people that neither is fit to govern.

POST: These folk explain it all in clay. Claysplained (@claysplained) • Instagram photos and videos

Strengthening Partnerships

Is it time for a new European alliance? The sands seem to be shifting as geopolitics suffers the rumbles of a communal earthquake. It’s a time for those who share similar values to come together. An alliance of people’s who believe in liberty, rule of law and self-determination. However our world might be viewed it’s a place where it’s surely better to be part of a bigger community than it is to stand alone. Power can be dangerous in the hands of a few.

Now, I know that nationalist and separatist voices can be loud and often superficially appealing. Absolute autonomy, if there is such a thing, does mean fragmenting partnerships and breaking-up communities that work well together. Long term stability is accrued by working with others.

I live in a complex place called the United Kingdom (UK). It’s not one kingdom but several. Yesterday morning, I stood at the bases of a statue that remembers ancient times and a pivotal moment in a gathering of unity. Having grown up in Wessex, I’m acquainted with this monarch given the number of places where his name is elevated.

King Alfred the Great was born in 849, in the town of Wantage. No, that’s not the mythical King Aurthur. Alfred was an able leader whose legacy warrants the word “Great”. He drove off troublesome Viking invaders and unified part of Anglo Saxon England. You bet there were probably dissenters who predicted that a novel kingdom could never work.

Viking invaders made their mark everywhere they went. They had mastery of the seas and a stubborn determination to explore and exploit without bounds. I guess, in England even now there’s a little bit of them in all of us. The brutish aspects of Viking society were their downfall. Smarter, more educated and learned leaders, like Alfred outwitted them in the end.

Culturally, Greenland is European. I’d go as far to say so is a major proportion of western Canada. The people who inhabit that large icy island are the ancestors of the Vikings.

The US has rightly recognised the need to strengthening Greenland’s security. Without doubt the best way to do that is via a reliable long-term partnership.

When the Vikings conquered a land, they forced its inhabitants to pay the Danegeld. To fight them King Alfred demanded service and taxes from landowners. You might say throughout history there’s no escaping death and taxes.

If Greenland is a mineral-rich territory, as is reputed, then it seems logical that some of that wealth be spent on security and defence. This matter doesn’t require the US to control Greenland. It does require the US and Europe to agree ways and means and work together.

It’s a massive counterproductive proposal to punish countries who disagree with a US take-over. Whacking tariffs on close partners is a way of making new conflicts and not boosting common interests. If the threat to this island territory is posed by Russia and China, then they must be quietly smiling.

Now, I know that nationalist and isolationist voices don’t see common security interests the way multilateralists do. Agreements need to be made in the frame of – what’s in it for me. It’s not just Greenland that needs a North Atlantic alliance to work, it’s all of us. The capacity to defend US and European interests in the Arctic is best served working in partnership.

Aside: I’ve never stepped on Greenland’s soil but have flown over it many times. The North Atlantic tracks that divide up the airspace run over both ocean and the tip of Greenland. Views from an aircraft window are of a vast wilderness.