Tag: News

The Digital Dilemma: On Youth

Every modern technology challenges us all. Technologies’ relentless path is unstoppable. Technology inevitable is a two-edged sword (good and bad). Not everyone will accept these statements. This is my observation of the last 50-years in the UK.

1976 was an incredible year. It’s being celebrated as the year of Punk Rock. That’s just one snip out of the scrapbook. In fact, the music scene was over briming with diversity in that year. Low-cost microprocessors were coming on to the market. Forward thinking innovators, like Sir Clive Sinclair[1] were thinking about how to put these into the hands of everyday people. Trade Unions were signalling concern that this technological revolution would mean the loss of millions of white-collar jobs. Politicians ran around in fear of a severe threat to the established social order.

Let’s just say, there was no less a public clamour about how to react to the transformations that were coming down the road as there is here in 2026. What is a 16-year-old to make of all this at any time? I was 16 in 1976. Now, what’s it like to be 16 faced with current relentless and often troublesome pressure of social media?

That’s one phenomenon that I didn’t have to deal with as an energetic engineering apprentice with the thrust for speed and motorcycles. That said, all the stuff we hate about social media, bulling, harassment, intimidation, hurt, and suffering were still ever present in society.

My starting point is that banning things is to be avoided if there’s a better way. It’s profoundly illiberal to reach for the law to ban as the only approach to problem solving. My caveat. If there’s evidence of systematic harms being caused to a vulnerable population then a ban may be inevitable. In this I can cite the restrictions that are placed on young drivers and motorcyclists. Without legislation restricting activities our society cannot accept the resulting death toll.

Age limits are part of a civilised society. So, a dilemma exists. What level of harm triggers a ban? That is assuming that an enforceable ban is the most effective way of achieving reduced harm. In reality, a ban by law does not aways work. Either people find a way around it or it turns out to be unenforceable. It can also become smothered in processes and procedures to be rendered useless. Exceptions and qualifications.

How about banning mobile phones or social media for young people? That’s two quite different moves.

Mobile phones are part of the digital landscape. No one should go through future education without a necessary exposure and grounding in the digital world. It’s their world. It’s not going away. Social media is different, but it’s a nebulous product. It’s not so easy to sit down and write a useful and workable definition of what’s included in social media. Even if a law is written about social media, within a brief time it will turn into something different. It’s a combination of communications technologies.

What we do need is regulation to minimise harm done. That needs to be agile but comprehensive. A most perplexing task. Up until now, regulation is the digital realm has been ad-hoc and focused separately on application areas. Much more work is needed.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/16/home-computing-pioneer-sir-clive-sinclair-dies-aged-81

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

Rethinking Taxation Strategies

The whole subject of land value tax is not one to get into if you are looking for something to read while waiting for a bus or looking for a light-hearted story. Yes, that could be said about any discussion about taxation. Probably one of the reasons why so few people engage in conversations about the nitty gritty of this subject.

LVT (Land Value Tax) is not new. This idea has been on the block for decades. One of the underlying reasons for its popularity is that instead of taxing things society likes, like business, commerce and employment, this tax scheme aims at an asset value. In a country where land is a valuable commodity, at least in populated areas, here’s a tax base that this solid.

The part LVT could play in UK tax reform is a major one. That’s where this subject gets twisty. How to get from where we are now to a new scheme that is understandable, straightforward, and acknowledged as fair. That is, at least in comparison with the existing taxation schemes.

One provision needed is to distinguish between public land to private land. There’s no point in raising revenue to fund local government and then getting that entity to use those funds pay the same tax. If private organisations lease public land, then there would need to be a provision too.

Then there’s the difficult issue of revaluations of private land such that the result is fair and genuinely reflects “value”. A city car park and a golf course are very different in that respect. Fine there is a national land registry, although there are still packets of land unregistered.

Quite a bureaucratic set-up establishing a Valuation Agency. Even if most of the necessary information is already held by lots of existing organisations. Every set of accounts is going to have value for assets held or owned. The range of accuracy of these values can be wide.

I’m not making a case against LVT. What I am saying is that tax reform is not easy. Those proposing it must have a long-term perspective. Must be committed to getting away from making ever more complicated fragmentary changes to legacy schemes. Adding ever more complexity to an unreadable tax code.  

Tax reform is not easy. Facing up to those who gain an advantage from the status-quo is often one of the greatest pressures that a government faces. Making life simpler and less burdensome for small businesses, shops, pubs and restaurants is a great ambition. Facing up to the owners of golf courses and sprawling country estates, now that’s not so easy.

Now, when I wonder what the New Year will bring it doesn’t seem that the current government is not brave enough to make radical changes. Their approach, over the last year, has been one of cautious incremental tinkering. If they have core principle, no one is quite sure what they are.

Pitfalls of Messaging

Listening to a Government minister bleat on the radio this morning, I do wonder how they ever became a person of influence. It’s as if the elevation to Westminster has wiped all their political sensibilities and replaced brain cells with wet putty.

The general theme is that this UK Labour Government has got to get its act together. It seems obvious to say. However, as they plod on talking of aims and ambitions the trend of public opinion is shifting against them with potentially dire consequences. The sad reality is that this Labour team has only been in power for a little over a year. Although they are really struggling, in our heart of hearts, most of us know that they are nowhere near as pathetically appalling as the past Conservative rabble of May, Johnson and Truss.

Here’s something that I don’t thinks works. It’s trying to scare supporters, and the public by saying repeatedly that if we don’t win you over the evil ones will grab power. In this case it’s the spectre of the Reform party extremists. It’s not a return of the Conservatives. They are going down their own freshly dug rabbit hole never to be seen again.

It’s almost to admit that – we (Labour) are pathetic but those who could come next are even more pathetic and dreadful with it. That approach doesn’t win an argument. Maybe it does scare a cohort of political activities to deliver one or two more leaflets. It doesn’t make, as was once said, the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus feel any better.

To me this morning’s Labour minister sounds like they are saying: sod it, this is harder than I thought it would be, but don’t you dare blame me. If you do blame me then monsters will devour the land and there will never be another chance to make the world a better place.

Let’s just say, for good measure there are no Elysian fields where every day the British tabloid newspapers sing the praise of a Labour government. Where cuddly commentators heap praise on Government’s achievements. Where opposition politicians have nothing to say because they are stunned into silence. Contentment sweeps across the land.

For me one of Labour’s most stupid lines is that there are certain subjects that can’t be mentioned or at least mentioned as if something was going to be done. That these subjects merely fuel the opposition and although we (Labour) may have strong feelings about these subjects we must be silent and non-committal.

Talking about Brexit for more than a minute, and the harm that it has done the country, is too dangerous. It’s like giving the Reform party dog a bone. As if right-wing extremists wouldn’t do what they do regardless of any bones, thrown or otherwise. They will do what they do.

The Labour party comes across as with the same caution that they had in the run-up to the last UK General Election. It has been described as carrying a valuable Ming vase. So scared of dropping this metaphoric vase that extreme caution dictates every move. Constantly looking over their shoulder anticipating an avalanche that might consume any possible success. A kind of neurotic sterility that’s as attractive as grey paint on a grey wall on a grey day.

There was a time when I joked about former UK Prime Minister (PM) John Major’s attempts at regain public support. His wooden soap box in the streets. His slogan – back to basics. He was living under a shadow. Maybe his timing was poor. Maybe for each political idea there’s a time and place.

That standing and talking honestly on a tatty soap box, that human touch is perhaps what the current PM needs. Can he do it?

A New Customs Union

Let’s not put up taxes. Let’s trade more. Seem obvious. Well not in late 2025 in Britain. This possibility must be forcefully put on the agenda for debate in parliament. Raise revenue, rather than raising new taxes, has got to be the better way to go. The bigger the pot the more chance that a government has got to balance the books. Taxes have their place but not to be the default opinion, in all cases.

The Labour Party has been talking the talk on growth in the economy but frequently marching in the opposite direction. It’s as if they embrace the comfort blanket of domestic tax increases too readily without thinking of the long-term impact. Habits are hard to change.

Before, what a majority agree was a mistake, Brexit, trade with our next-door neighbours was in a much healthier position than it is now. We’ve (UK) created barriers and obstacles that have diminished our trading position to no advantage whatsoever. Coming up for a decade of backward thinking.

In parliament, the Liberal Democrats are tabling a bill that calls for creating new Customs Union (CU) with the European Union (EU).

What is a CU? Simply put, it’s a trade agreement between countries to abolish tariffs on the goods they trade with each other. So, instead of barriers and obstacles to trade, the whole process becomes easier and cheaper.

Yes, such an agreement with the EU would have implications for relations with non-EU countries. What I’d say in that respect is that such negotiations with non-EU countries on tariffs haven’t been going so well in the last year. The UK has been buffeted by the policy of other nations, where their policy often spins on a dime. On / off fragile agreements don’t add enduring value.

Such a new CU with our next-door neighbours would boost the UK’s GDP by a significant amount. A boost of £25bn a year for the public finances is predicted. Thus, the growing demands that drive for domestic tax increases would be abated or at least be affordable.

Do you remember? So, many advocates of Brexit said we’d never leave the CU. It’s easily forgotten but some of the most ardent Brexit supports were saying this to the electorate. In essence being untruthful.

Back in January 2017, the Conservative Prime Minister (PM) of the time confirmed that the UK would not remain in the EU CU. What a massive mistake PM May made. The repercussions have been devastating for businesses and the public up and down the UK. It was an act of disfigurement that damaged our economy for nothing more than political dogma.

Sadly, we are where we are. I wouldn’t start from here. Wouldn’t it be great if negotiations started to take the UK into a new CU with our nearest, biggest trading neighbours and partners.

Sadly, the way the parliamentary vote will go is rather predicable. The Labour Party, in its current form, is not the internationalist Labour Party of its history and traditions. Currently, government support is not forthcoming. They prefer to talk the talk without walking the walk.

Post: Fix Britain’s Trade – Liberal Democrats

Safety Differences

Are the safety standards for all large aeroplanes the same? No, they are not. I’m never sure if the public naively expect this to be the case. I’m sure it’s not something that goes through the mind of every air traveller. Looking up at an aeroplane, flying overhead, this is not a thought that instantly comes to mind. Even watching them take-off and land at a busy airport.

A large aeroplane is a large aeroplane – surely. Well, not exactly. Several issue come into play when addressing the safety standards for large civil transport aeroplanes. For example, when did the type of aeroplane first go into service? What is it being used for? Where is it flying to? How many people are on-board?

One place to start with any discussion on this subject is with the basics. For a start an aeroplane is heavier than air and its power driven. Immediately, two important factors pop out of that definition. One: weight counts. Two: operating engine(s) are needed.

Almost lost in the mists of time are the reasons for dividing the world of transport aeroplanes into two categories. Simply called – large and small.

Underlying this basic categorisation is an historic assumption. This is an assumption upon which civil aviation safety regulation has been built. Namely, that efforts need to be made to ensure large aeroplanes are safer than small aeroplanes. One way of looking at this is to consider a spectrum of risk, and several parameters of concern.

Let’s start with the question above – what is it being used for? A transport aeroplane can be used to carry cargo or passengers, often both. The number of crew and passengers carried can range from 1 to 850[1]. In fact, for large aeroplanes, there’s no upper limit written into international standards. However, the term “very large aeroplane” is coined for the upper end of weight or passenger numbers carried. Sadly, the very largest of these very large aeroplanes (cargo), the Antonov An-225 Mriya, was destroyed by war.

Although, a matter of primary concern is the number of passengers carried, and therefore at risk in the event of an incident or accident, the main dividing line in the regulatory landscape between large and small aeroplanes is weight.

To some extent this has a foundation. It could be viewed that in the event of an incident or accident any resulting impact will be more severe the greater the weight of the aeroplane. This is where a parameter called the MTOW, or Maximum Take-off Weight, comes in. This number includes the total weight of an aeroplane, crew, fuel, passengers, and cargo.

Today, we divide the world of large and small aeroplanes based on MTOW. Yes, the maximum number of passengers that can be carried comes into the equation too. The question I have is, should that be the number one consideration?

[1] https://www.airwaysmag.com/legacy-posts/top-10-largest-passenger-aircraft

Public Broadcasting Value

It seems to be the season to have a downer on the BBC. As the gloomy light of winter gathers all around. The trees are shedding their leaves and that hunkering down mentality is invading my thoughts. Lawns no longer need mowing. Soden with moss and leaf fall.

I understand the dislike that partisan commercial broadcasters have for publicly funded broadcasters. The question of a “level playing field” and “bias” is always likely to come up.

Making a living from commercial advertising is highly competitive. Demands never stop. Seeking income from a marketplace that rises and falls with fashion and fad. That’s hard. Admittedly, there’s the compensating factor of wealthy benefactors or owners, prepared to make a loss, pumping funds into like minded companies. Shifting sands of political influence.

So, looking across the aisle at a major broadcaster that gets funds from the public, as a matter of law, must seem rather disconcerting. Certainly, it’s the sort of issue the wealthy benefactors or owners of media are going to kick at. Some to the extent of wanting to destroy chartered institutions with an ethos unlike their own.

What is a “level playing field” in the British media landscape? Can there ever be such a thing? That’s not an easy question to address. Shifting sands of public likes and dislikes shape the playing field (sorry about the metaphor overload). What might have been considered as independent, objective and neutral in the 1990s is way different from that now, 30-years on.

The British media landscape is not static, nor should it be so. In the period of three decades digital communication has advances at lightning speed. The sheer diversity of channels of communication has multiplied (even if they do repeat the same messages).

One sign of a healthy debate is the self-flagellation that the BBC often undergoes. As an institution, doesn’t it like to agonise about itself. With good reason considering some of the grave errors it’s made in the past. Supporting presenters whose behaviours have been found to be appallingly bad, and even criminal.

Let’s not tar everyone with the same brush. To be able to make mistakes and then correct them, with a good degree of learning in-between, is a strength. Some partisan commercial broadcasters seem unable to do this with any conviction. They just move on.

A publicly accountable broadcaster has no choice but to stand in the dock and take a reprimand, when appropriate. That’s no reason to shut it down. It’s a reason to make sure lessons are learned and not forgotten.

Doing a simple intuitive cost-benefit analysis. Taking the BBC as an example. What it offers, when it works well, far outweighs the costs. Listing three points, these have significant value: unifying impact of having a trusted national broadcaster, quality, broad base and originality of its output and editorial independence (not selling products or ideology).

Overseas critics may get upset, now and then, but that’s for them to get over. There’s no way such critics should shape the future of the broadcast media in Britain. That would be untenable.

Wealth and Power

No history buff, need you be. That’s Yoda speak for saying that there are one or two matters that bubble to the surface through human history. Let’s shelve the fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It’s a subject that a whole religion could be based upon.

I could encapsulate the phenomenon in the words: “Let them eat cake”. An example of a stratified society where those people that the top have completely lost sight of the lives lived by the majority. There’s a recognition that others exist but no great empathy or care.

That detachment can be exhibited in signs like gold plated panelling, crystal chandlers bedecking breathtaking halls and spare no expense expressions of power and wealth.

That’s one of my memories of my one visit to Russia. A port of call during a Baltic cruise itinerary. A trip that highlighted fascinating contrasts but shared histories. A good reminder of dramatic events. The Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg[1] is truly stunning. Lavish in every sense. A sign of the last century intense competition between major European powers.

To top a list, the Palace of Versailles[2] is the premier example of draw dropping magnificence. Naturally, these are global statements of power and wealth that are celebrated as part of our common heritage. They are, however, a lesson that history has posted for us to read.

What do both have in common?

Today, Kings and Queens are familiar with that lesson. Possibly apart from a small number who haven’t yet embraced modernity. If I must write it in the minimum number of words, it’s that distance that can grow between those who have great privilege and those who don’t. Then what happens when that becomes truly unstainable.

Revolution is bookmarked in any history book. These are moments, and their consequences are when a break point is reached. Although signs are there in hindsight predicting such events is a fraught with uncertainty. It’s usually thought that the price of destruction and devastation are a dam that keeps thoughts of revolution at bay. Change that happens, as if a dam breaks, are notoriously difficult to predict and cost. Not only that but such thoughts are rarely in the minds of any revolutionaries and their opponents.

Let me be clear. We are no where near a breakpoint in this moment. If I must write something, it’s more about the subtle signs that the direction of travel is not a positive one. Fine to dismiss my point of view as being that of a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I get that.

It’s the consequences of the concentration of power and wealth that’s concerning. The rise of the global billionaires and their reach beyond national boundaries is of the age. Nation states are no longer the biggest players in the writing of the story of the future. This is not always entirely bad, some are altruistic, but growing economic inequality[3] is bad. Outcomes from situations where inequality exceeds certain limits, that’s not where anyone sane should go.

[1] https://www.historyhit.com/locations/the-winter-palace/

[2] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/83/

[3] https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/12/widening-of-the-wealth-gap-the-rise-of-billionaires/

Embracing Uncertainty

Imagine siting under a great wide spreading old oak tree. Acorns falling all around. The ground littered with whole ones, crashed ones and half eaten ones. It’s more the half-eaten hazelnuts that the squirrels leave behind that I’m thinking of. On one of those cool days, like this morning, when the rain has abated and the sun beams are streaming across the glistening fields. It was lower than 2 degrees, early this morning, so a heavy drew rests on the grass and leaves.

Think of title for a book or film that sums up the state of current affairs. I’m tempted to say “All the President’s Men” but that’s been well done in the 1970s. Not only that but the word “scandal” may have lost its meaning. Political fiction and reality are melding into one. Anyway, I don’t want to follow the crowd and obsess about America.

Was there ever an age when prosperity seemed assured and the population was happy. When men and women of honourable intentions and wisdom, judicially ruled the land? Maybe not. Or when it happened, to some limited extent it didn’t last beyond a generation.

Any title for a book or film would have to encompass the persistence of change. Nothing upon nothing ever stands still. In fact, that’s one of the few things I can write that is an absolute. A real natural absolute phenomenon. Everything we know of moves relative to something else and movements mean change. We never breath the same air.

In a storage box of my books there’s a title: “Thriving on chaos[1]“. That’s more to do with an attitude to change. It doesn’t sum up the moment although it does imply that chaos is normal. I’m not going there fully since not all change is chaotic. Life is punctuated with regularity. It’s the traditional saying about death and taxes. Those two are regular occurrences.

A financial crisis or stock market crash or bursting bubble seem to hit us as an unexpected instant of violent change. Unexpected that is until hindsight kicks in and we all wish we’d listed to siren voices. Analysis streams from the outcome of a crisis[2].

A title for a book or film would need to include the recurrent nature of both good and bad consequences. It would need to emphasis our inability to accurately predict what’s going to happen next. That is even if one or two of us may get it right.

All this leads me down the road of a manner of thinking that’s all too common to me. That’s the world of probabilities. Addressing that slippery ell called uncertainty. So, what could be better as a title than: “The Age of Uncertainty.” Oh look, that’s been taken back in the 1970s. What could be better than the title chosen by John Kenneth Galbraith[3]?

He looked at the chaotic but repetitious nature of our common history. Going way back. Unsurprisingly a little cynical and monosyllabic at times. I’ve been rewatching his BBC television series. It’s impressive.

Acorns are falling all around. An unusually large number, this year. Next year – who knows? If I could find some reliable data, I could do some probability calculations based on past seasons. But with certainty, I can say that we are in an age of uncertainty. Acorns will fall. How many – well that’s the question isn’t it.

[1] https://tompeters.com/thriving-on-chaos/

[2] “The Storm” by Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat politician, looking at the 2008 global economic crisis.

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002l6sc/the-age-of-uncertainty

Rebuilding Relations

Here I’ve posted a thousand posts. So, it might be a good time to reflect. It was back in April 2016 that this blog started. The provocation being the then pending UK referendum vote. What was to become Brexit and a long litany of mistakes and missteps.

I’d not long returned to the UK from my time in Germany. I had a what I thought was a reasonable sense of the UK political landscape, only to find I was wrong. Here’s what I wrote:

“It’s the biggest event since the Berlin Wall fell. Yes, not to mince my words the UK referendum on EU membership could change the political landscape for a generation or more. It could be a terrible gamble that erects dark walls all over Europe or it could start a new period of enlightenment within the European project.”

I wasn’t far wrong with that statement. The landscape suffered a landslide. Even though the results of the votes were practically even- evens, for reasons that now seem bizarre the electorate swung in favour of leaving the European Union (EU). If the polls are to be believed, then the overwhelming majority now regret that choice[1].

“I’m firmly convinced that our place is in Europe. We are strong enough, we are clever enough and we are determined enough to make that project work. What a bonus that would be: Expanding a market that covers half a billion people on our doorstep. Guaranteeing that the world sits-up and listens to Europe. Unlocking a diverse creative powerhouse where the UK would thrive.”

My then time arguments were coherent, logical and straightforward. I didn’t know we were entering a phase when such attributes were to decline in importance. Should I have been wiser? With hindsight it’s easy to say that the campaign to remain in the EU was appallingly poor. Even if, at the time, I did wonder if the pomposity of the then UK Prime Minister would play a negative part in the outcome.

“The frightening alternative is to gamble with millions of jobs and invite a plunge into recension. If this happens it’s the younger generation who will pay the price. We should not condemn them to isolation and struggle for reasons of narrow nationalism.”

Oh brother. With something like 4% knocked off the country’s prosperity and a government struggling to finance public services, sadly I was spot on the money.

“I’m not saying the EU is perfect. In fact, I wouldn’t say Westminster or my local council are perfect – far from it. But the EU is a work-in-progress and not a finished project. It’s better for British pragmatism. It’s a two-way street as free movement brings people to these shores who then go home with a positive view of what we have to offer. In the next generation that means more trade and better international relations.”

Having seen at first hand the workings of both the British civil service and the European Commission, British parliamentarians and European ones, I could see a common thread. The foolish notion that escaping into glorious isolation would produce prosperity was nuts.

Here we are in 2025. It would be nice to say that – I wouldn’t start from here – but that’s useless. The thing to do is to reconcile, reaffirm and rebuild relations with Europe.  

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52410-nine-years-after-the-eu-referendum-where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-brexit