History is the result of human actions, but not of human design, wrote Friedrich Von Hayek.
‘Brexit’ bears that out. Globalisation was not supposed to go backward. The Lisbon Treaty of 2007 included Article 50, the option to exit. But that was never meant to be invoked. The British politicians demanded it to sell the treaty at home, but it was always assumed that once done, the British public would always stop at ‘we can go but why should we’ thought.
But 2015 was not 2007. A lot changed, and three things, in particular, wrecked that cosy assumption.
The First and the most obvious one is immigration. The expansive Blair-Bush foreign policy encouraged the EU to expand East and Southwards, adding 10 new countries in 2004. Free movement rights into Britain for the citizens of the new member states sent in, against the plan for a few thousand, a million new migrants.
The second – and the most painful – factor was the 2008 recession. Yet it’s the aftermath that mattered more. As the government handed out money to the banks, schools and hospitals lost funding in the name of austerity. Rich bankers kept paying themselves million-pound bonuses while businesses went bankrupt all over the country. People lost their houses while people with big houses were handed cheap loans and tax breaks to buy more houses.
The third – and most predictable – issue was a complete loss of trust in the establishment politicians. While the country was being forced into austerity, the MPs from all parties were claiming expenses for all sorts of weird, luxurious and illegal stuff, for non-existent houses and even porn CDs.
Since the 1990s, Britain, along with other western nations, settled into a form of ‘consumer democracy’. This was the opposite of ‘what you can do for your country’ moment of the 60s: Instead, this was a Thatcherite dream world of politics-free economy, where getting rich was glorious, being political was bad and economic growth was the sole object of policy. The wrecking ball of recession undid part of this arrangement: the unfamiliarity of immigrants, the unfairness of the bail-out and the unpopularity of the politicians soon converged in a perfect storm of public disgust.
The totemic figures of Syrian migrants and European bureaucrats were invoked and subjected to social media equivalent of public burning; frivolous promises of directing public money to Britain’s beloved NHS were made out of hand. With no-one credible to tell the truth, everything was possible and anything could be true. The Brexit rallying cry of ‘Take back control’ gave the voter a feeling of sticking two fingers up at the powerful, and let him gain, even if for a fleeting moment, the control of his own life.
Therefore, on the morrow of 24th June 2015, the penny dropped.
Churchill once said that if forced to a choice between Europe and the open sea, Britain must always choose the sea. Its history, built on the sea-borne empire and trade, is full of painful engagements in Europe. The island-mind, obsessed with conjured nightmares of invaders across the channel, always wanted to and did keep away. Post-empire, the country still imagined itself as a hub of connections, between the three great economic spheres of Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth. Therefore, its membership of Europe, shaped by cold war politics, was forever fragile, marked by contention and tendencies of exclusivism. That relationship, maintained for geopolitical reasons, needed a redefinition after the Cold War.
Someone should have seen it coming. Princeton’s Dani Rodrik predicted that a country can’t have global markets, nation-state and democracy together; it must choose two, any two, of the three. However, such choice is hard: Democratic governments, which live from opinion poll to opinion poll, love to defer such issues as long as they can. It was only an accidental exercise of direct democracy, made possible by David Cameron’s hubris and imperial nostalgia of the backbencher MPs, opened up the issue.
But, while Britain could leave, surrounded by water as it is, the United Kingdom could not go so easily. All of a sudden, the question of Ireland is back on the table – and even Spain is circling around Gibraltar. Brexit meant Brexit for a while, and then not: After the initial flurry of rhetoric, resolve and deadlines, extensions and fudge took it over.
A thousand Brexits bloom in the meantime. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party leader and a silent Brexiter, sees a wonderful world of nationalised railways and giant public sector companies, not unlike the years before Thatcher, as Britain escapes the restrictions imposed by EU law. Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, dreams of a low tax mega-Singapore, a world of no labour rights and truly free global trade, a capitalist Disneyland free from the restrictions of being in a trade bloc like EU. Nigel Farage, with his German wife and French girlfriend, sees a whiter Britain, free of immigrants; Indians, who voted for Brexit, dream of one where the Indian immigrants would replace the Poles and the Czechs. Between everyone’s Brexit hopes and Brexit nightmares, Britain, a country which survived half a millennium with a weak monarch and an unwritten constitution, now looks expectantly to the Queen and its courts to find a resolution.
But, away from middle-class men fretting about their European holidays and Indian migrants waiting for hassle-free supply of ghee from home (free of European import restrictions), the ghost of Brexit-future showed up in a tragic clarifying moment: Right in front of 19-year-old Harry Dunn, in the form of speeding car driving at the wrong – American – side of the road. Harry was killed in the crash and Anna Sacoolas, the US intelligence officer’s wife who forgot which side to drive, left the country using her diplomatic passport. President Trump expressed sympathy, not with the victim but the runaway American, saying ‘we have all done it’!
Britain now finds itself on the wrong – American – side of the road, not knowing what’s coming its way. In this end time of ‘consumer democracy’, opportunists galore and the conversations fracture. Through the thousand realities of breaking of times, history is being made.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.