Feel the Bern

Hello readers!

Today, I’m going to discuss a topic I usually can’t be bothered with: American politics. As a card-carrying European, what goes on the other side of the pond doesn’t really affect me, so why pay attention? Well, I’m going to make an exception this time—I think the Democratic nomination is really interesting. More importantly, it could have wider relevance for how left-wing parties win (or lose) against populist right-wing opponents.

Also, I have a different perspective because I’m not American; this can give me valuable insights that are missing in the debate. I’ve been treated by the NHS, to take just one example.

I’m going to structure this post into two parts: the first is an overview of the personalities, the second is about tactics. I’ll finish by discussing the issues in my conclusion. Why not put the issues front-and-centre, you ask? Well, it’s because the American Presidency is fundamentally a personality contest. You can’t win an election without understanding this fact.

The Personalities

I’m going to classify the candidates based on Donald Trump’s nicknames. I have no love for Darth Cheetoh (as some affectionately call him) but Trump is a very effective rhetorician who speaks straight from the gut. His ability to nail a politicial opponent’s weaknesses—and to embody the spirit of Middle America—is remarkable.

I’ll discuss the candidates who have had sizeable votes; I’ll ignore the non-entities like Steyer, Yang etc.

“Sleepy Joe”: I think Democrats are making a big mistake voting for this guy. I mean, I like him, and Biden is a likeable guy. But he has several critical flaws that make him a poor choice to fight Donald Trump in 2020. Firstly, he shows worrying signs of senility: he mixes up his wife with his sister, doesn’t know what state he’s in, thinks he’s running for the Senate, and said 150 million Americans were killed by gun violence. (That’s half the population.)

On top of that, he is an establishment politician implicated in the Ukraine debacle. I don’t care about the details; voters won’t either. Trump proved how good he is at eviscerating establishment politicians with Hillary Clinton. “Crooked Clinton” cost Democrats the White House, and “Sleepy Joe” might do the same in 2020.

“Mini Mike”: Only one candidate is worse than Biden against Trump, and it’s this guy. Seriously, what the hell are Democrats thinking? Never mind that progressives won’t vote for a groping billionaire. Trump is a groping billionaire himself, and as such, he intimately understands Bloomberg’s weaknesses. Faced with two billionaires, voters will pick the more charismatic of the two.

“Crazy Bernie”: Why isn’t Bernie the front-runner anymore? What are Democrats thinking? Bernie Sanders would wipe the floor with Trump. He is a brilliant grassroots campaigner; he has the money; and most importantly, people like him. He’s honest and authentic and wins people over to his side. Americans think socialism is crazy—but they agree with public healthcare, and they want college to be cheaper. The more they listen to Sanders, the more reasonable he seems.

“Mayor Pete”: Also known as BOOT EDGE EDGE. I liked him a lot—it was really promising to see a gay candidate come out of nowhere and do so well. I think Pete might have won against Trump, despite the handicap of homophobia. (It’s also interesting that Trump respected a gay man as his political opponent.)

I actually think lack of minority support was a much bigger problem for him. The lack of Black support was his own damn fault—he made some mistakes as mayor of South Bend. But I think he could, in the future, gain lots of support from Latinos; he just needs to reach out and campaign better.

It’s wonderful to think this man could plausibly have become President of the United States.

“The Phoney Pocahontas” aka Elizabeth Warren: A smart woman and a brilliant policymaker, but not a good presidential candidate against Trump. The fabricated stories about her Native American ancestry (debunked by a Cherokee genealogist) is exactly the kind of identity politics that would cost her an election. I’m glad she’s dropped out, and hope she will continue to make a difference in politics.

Tactics

Let’s talk about electability. I think Bernie Sanders is more likely to win than Biden. It’s not impossible that Biden could beat Trump, mind you, but they odds are definitely in Bernie’s favour.

Why? It boils down to two things. Obviously, Sanders can get the base out (this has been discussed ad nauseam). But perhaps more importantly, he can win back Trump–Obama voters, which data shows is the reason Clinton lost the election. He can do this by appealing to them—through his policies, through the kind of person he is—and not playing identity politics.

The data shows that racial anxiety was the reason these voters supported Trump (a “whitelash”). But since these people voted a black man for President (twice!), I hardly think Democrats should give up on them. If the left makes a positive, optimistic case for their vision of America, these voters will come back. If Democrats attack them as racist, and bite Trump’s bait, they will lose.

But how does Bernie win the nomination? The Democratic establishment has rallied around Biden. The good news is that Warren has dropped out, and I’m hoping she will formally endorse Bernie Sanders. If it takes a VP ticket or a seat on a committee, so be it. Bernie and Liz need to stick together.

I want to briefly touch on why the Democratic establishment is so keen to support Biden, despite some pretty obvious flaws. I think it boils down to two things;

1. (This is the theory I lean towards) They’re desperate. People who are desperate, in my experience, don’t think rationally.
2. They want to lose with Biden rather than win with Bernie, as the latter option means they lose control of the institution (the Democratic party). Psychologists who study organisations often note this kind of behaviour.

Bernie needs to show Biden’s weakness. “If Joe can’t win a debate against me, how can he beat Donald Trump?” This is is the question Bernie needs to ask voters. He doesn’t have to be aggressive, mind you; Sleepy Joe is like a deer in the headlights anyway.

Conclusion

Two questions are important in the Democratic contest. The first is: “What’s the answer to Trump?” The second is: “How does America get public healthcare?” In both cases, the answer is vote Bernie Sanders.

Pete Buttigieg made a huge mistake in turning away from the single-payer model. He asked what would happen to the 150 million Americans who have private healthcare via their employers. The answer is that all 300 million Americans would be covered under an American NHS, and they won’t have to pay out-of-pocket, and they won’t lose healthcare along with their job. (The German model that Pete proposed would be certainly an improvement over the present system, but it’s still second best. When has America ever settled for second-best?)

If Bernie Sanders makes the case for Biden’s poor electability, and champions in his Medicare-for-all policy, he might still win. I for one think it’s time to “Feel the Bern”.

Comments on the Election

Hello readers!

As of this morning, Friday the 13th, the UK General Election 2019 results have been declared. This post will be separated into multiple parts, to account for my predictions before the campaign (spoiler: I was right); to the result here in Scotland; and to the reality in England, and what it will mean for the future. I aim to provide a preliminary analysis of why the results turned out as they did, though we will need more in-depth data to uncover some of the mysteries.

My Predictions

In this post written six weeks before the election, I made three concrete predictions, and raised the point that the NHS would be a major part of the election campaign. The polls agree that, besides Brexit, the NHS was indeed a big part of voters’ concerns.

As for my three predictions, I was correct on all of them, though some were more prescient than others.

Claim 1: “I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.”

This proved fantastically accurate, or dare I say, prophetic. It’s true that the Liberal Democrat vote increased 7.4% to 11.5%, but this did nothing other than gift seats to the Tories. Jo Swinson lost her seat, confirming what I thought and what the polls were saying: no one likes Jo Swinson.

Moreover, judging from the campaign, Jo Swinson’s Lib Dems lost for the exact reasons I predicted: their revoke policy was undemocratic, and a large number of Remain voters (especially we, the young) care about the NHS, education and welfare. Jo Swinson’s record in coalition was less than stellar on those counts.

Claim 2: “the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats.”

This was precisely correct: the Green vote increased from 1.6% to 2.7% and they retained their 1 seat. The high profile of environmental issues in the media helped them. I should say that Labour would have won some more seats if the Greens had stood down in some constituencies, but hey, who cares about Brexit if we can pretend to save the planet?

Claim 3: “The Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland.”

This one turned out to be mostly correct. The Scottish Tories lost 7 of their 13 seats, and their vote share decreased by 3.5%. I was hoping for a wipe-out, but I’m sure my fellow SNP activists are happy with the result.

As for why the Scottish Tories got 25% of the vote, I’ve tried to understand it, and I’ve come to the following conclusion. About half of Scottish Tory voters do see Boris Johnson’s policies on the economy and NHS as being pretty despicable. I think they justify voting for the Tories with the idea that those policies can be fixed, whereas the breakup of the UK—and exit from the EU—are permanent decisions.

The thing with identities is that they are powerful. Unionists in Scotland believe they are British, and it’s incredibly difficult for them to give that up; they will vote to keep it, even if it means enormous child poverty, homelessness, and decimating the NHS.

What will happen to Scotland?

In one word: Independence. In two words: EU membership. The long, in-depth explanation is going to be too complicated to discuss here. The road to independence will be long, hard, and treacherous. An almighty confrontation between the Scottish government and the Tory government in Westminster will be just the start.

I wish I could be optimistic and say that everything will be alright for Scotland. I think it will—in the future. But the next couple of years are going to be chaotic and uncertain. The double whammy of Tory government and Brexit is going to devastate this country.

What happened in England?

I don’t need to tell you this: Corbyn lost and BoJo’s Tories won. But you know who also lost? England, as a nation. British democracy. Rational thought and truth.

As for why this happened, I’m not sure yet. There are many obvious answers: the antisemitism debacle which was parroted by the media ad infinitum—and which Corbyn would have nipped in the bud long ago, if he had any sense. It’s true that the media coverage was pathetic, and incredibly hostile to Labour; but that doesn’t excuse Corbyn for giving them ammunition.

Then there’s Corbyn himself, who could not get across to the electorate like he did in 2017. But hey, I predicted this long ago. I loved most of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, but I was always sceptical of the man himself; I called him “less than prime-ministerly” and pithily remarked: “Corbyn? Get a tie.”

I was hoping the young were going to save Labour the same way they did last time, particularly since 1.5 million people registered to vote. Source I don’t know what the hell happened. Did the young vote for the Lib Dems and Greens in a grand act of irony? Did we not come out to vote on polling day? Or was it simply not enough to outvote the bloody pensioners and turkeys?

All of this pales in comparison to the biggest reason for why the Tories won the election: “Get Brexit done.” As John Crace has remarked, this was the biggest lie of the election—and it will cost the English dearly. Look, English voters: the Brexit paralysis we have experienced for the past three years has not been because the Tories didn’t have a majority in Parliament. It’s because Brexit is complicated, difficult, and costly.

The media has encouraged this foolish, self-regarding stupidity. Brexit isn’t hard because British Remainers don’t want it. It’s hard because I, along with the 440 million people in Continental Europe, aren’t going to hand your unicorn on a silver platter. Neither will Trump’s America or China. We have our own interests and we are going to protect them.

I repeat: you are not a world power anymore. If you try and force a deal, you will get nothing, and your economy will implode.

I’m going to abandon my normally calm, rational tone and say it like it is. If you voted Tory, you’ve fucked the young. You’ve fucked the disabled, the homeless, and the people on low pay. You put a noose around the neck of the NHS. Don’t come begging to me when Brexit screws you over; I told you so.

A Brief Update

Hello readers!

I do apologise for my dreadful lack of blogging these last two weeks. I have, alas, been busy—both with university, and with other areas of writing. To begin: you may find my analysis on the aftermath of the General Election interesting.

The question that is on everyone’s mind — be it political commentators, several reputable pollsters, and of course, May herself — is surely: how did it come to this? Barely two months ago, it seemed inevitable that she would win, and win big. By embracing Brexit, and indeed presenting herself as the Queen of Brexit, May believed she would win millions of votes from people who voted UKIP (an anti-immigration party) two years ago. On top of that, Labour was in chaos: Corbyn (Labour’s controversial leader) had faced a motion of no-confidence, a walkout by his Shadow Cabinet, and was the most unpopular leader in opposition history.

And yet, here we are, in an election where Labour gained seats (and a rare 40 percent of the vote share) while May has lost her majority. What gives? What led May from being the uncrowned queen to the empress with no clothes?

Full article on Red Pers.

I have, on top of this, finalised my essay to be published in Issues in Earth Science—I will be receiving the prize money soon. On top of that, there has, of course, been the matter of Fallen Love. My upcoming new book is filled with delights, but writing it has proven to be a substantial amount of work. As I have written previously there are various reasons for this, not least the fact that I am writing in a new genre.

I have also been doing more miscellaneous things, such as visiting Amsterdam in the summer—photos can be seen here—and attempting to make the best of the unexpectedly pleasant summer weather.

In any case, you’ll forgive me when I say this post is short. I must soldier on, with an exam on Thursday and a book that refuses to write itself. Until then, may the stars be with you.

The General Election 2017: It’s as Simple as ABC

Hello readers!

Today—as you may be able to guess—the subject is the UK General Election. This will not be an analysis piece. The question I wish to answer is simple: how should you vote? The answer is likewise simple: anything but conservative. Of course, this is not a propaganda piece, either; I wish to persuade you, the reader, with sound, factual argument. So buckle up—it’s going to be an interesting ride.

Theresa May: Weak, Dishonest, Out of her Depth

The Prime Minister’s mantra this election has been “strong and stable”. She repeats it at every opportunity (except for debates, of course, because she doesn’t attend those). Indeed, the new mantra has even superseded the old clichés—such as the much-loved magic money tree.

It is said, however, that weak leaders describe themselves by what they hope to represent, rather than what they actually represent. Think of it as being a bit like “the People’s Republic of China”—neither a republic nor of the people. More a statement of ideals, if you will.

Theresa May is, in many ways, politically inept. The commentariat used to believe she was some sort of political genius; how else, they reasoned, could she have toppled Cameron and become PM? (The answer: opportunism and lack of serious opposition.)

The most damning proof of her ineptness is likely the “dementia tax”, so baptised for targeting people in need of social care—aka dementia sufferers—with a tax on the value of their home. The details are problematic enough; the tax is rife with the possibility of abuse. But perhaps more worryingly still, May announced this unpopular policy before the election, U-turned, and then pretended she hadn’t. Hardly the mark of a great statesman or master negotiator.

Speaking of master negotiators, her Brexit approach is... utter shambles. This may surprise some of my readers. After all: they say May is trusted on Brexit. She certainly wants you to believe it. But I shall recourse back to the analogy I gave previously; the People’s Republic of China is as much a republic as Theresa May is a “safe pair of hands”.

Partly this is because of her team. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has described the Germans as Nazis—an act of such mind-numbing stupidity, it almost defies comprehension. Then there is David Davies, the Brexit Secretary, who admitted he had made no economic assessment of Brexit—nine months after the referendum! And don’t even get me started on the Secretary for International Trade (or is that Dr?) Liam Fox, who was forced to resign as defence secretary on allegations of corruption.

Then there is May herself. “No deal is better than a bad deal” she proclaimed to thunderous applause, as if the EU negotiations were like buying a carpet at a bazaar, perhaps. And not, you know, a massive constitutional challenge with millions of people’s citizenship rights—on both sides of the Channel—at stake.

So-called “No Deal” Brexit would also be an economic disaster, the likes of which the much-maligned Corbyn would struggle to accomplish. Banks are already making plans to leave, with calamitous consequences for UK tax revenues. Tearing Britain out of the Customs Union will result in huge delays and expenses, destroying pan-European supply chains for British exporters, and forcing business leaders to defer investments or move production elsewhere. The country’s triple-A rating has also been slashed.

Or, in less technical terms: No Deal Brexit will be a shit storm. And the fact that Theresa May is seriously contemplating it should tell you a lot about how competent she really is.

The A-Word

The Tories wanted this to be the Brexit election. Alas, this is not so. The fact of the matter is, this country has not forgotten about austerity; it remains a problem, festering deep beneath a complacent Conservative party. People do care about the NHS, which the Red Cross has deemed to be in “humanitarian crisis”. They do care about schools, which are facing real cuts in funding per pupil. They do care about high energy prices, social care, pensions, and the chronic shortfall in housing.

And if you care about those issues, then don’t vote Conservative. Judge them on their record, as they say. I won’t go into technical details; the effects of their policies are plain for all to see.

It’s as easy as... ABC

It’s easy for me to say “anything but Conservative”, you think. Isn’t Corbyn some swivel-eyed IRA supporter? Doesn’t Tim Farron think gay sex is a sin?

Only, it isn’t as hard as you think. Corbyn has his sore spots, true. But what he may, or may not, have said about the IRA was thirty years ago; this is, after all, 2017 and not 1983. The agonising over whether or not he’ll press the red button is just that—agonising. It’s about as likely as Godzilla jumping from the sea and rampaging through London. (Okay, maybe I exaggerate. But only a little.)

And Corbyn does have the answer to the problems this country faces now. His manifesto recognises the real issues we face, puts forward serious proposals to fix them, and is costed too. (Remember the Tory manifesto? Which party seems more competent, really?)

But why, you ask, should you not just vote for Labour; in other words, why is my motto “anything but conservative” rather than “vote Labour”? The answer is our good old First Past the Post voting system. It is better to vote for a Liberal Democrat, or a Green, if voting Labour means getting Tory. Or in other words: better half a loaf of bread than none at all.

You have every right to doubt the Lib Dems, though.

Tim Farron is the embodiment of hypocrisy. But as I say: sometimes one has to choose the least worst option.

Parting Words

We do not know exactly what will happen on the 8th June. Perhaps we will have a hung parliament; perhaps the Tories will win comfortably. It is even possible that Corbyn will do it, and become Prime Minister.

But let us leave that for later. For now, the message I want to give you is this: we live in on the edge of a very dark time in politics. Hubris, short-sightedness and ignorance could isolate us from Europe, with devastating consequences for the economy and for the people caught in between. The Tories have run down our public services to breaking point; it is only a matter of time before something cracks. Our Prime Minister has shown her weakness to the world.

This is no time for entertaining hypothetical scenarios about Armageddon. This is no time for mud-slinging and personality politics. On the 8th of June, I urge you to vote with a clear head. The future is in your hands... even if it’s cliché.

The Battle is Won, but the War Continues

As part of my journalism endeavours, I have written another article on the French elections, this time regarding Macron’s challenges as he enters the Élysée. An excerpt is quoted below; the full link can be found at the bottom.

It would be no understatement to say that Macron’s victory in the second round of the French presidential elections has made EU politicians sigh with relief. His opponent — the Front National candidate — ran on a platform that included taking France out of the euro, calling a referendum on ‘Frexit’, and turning France into a facsimile of the Vichy Régime. Regardless of standard political considerations, Macron’s success was a victory for all decent people throughout Europe; it demonstrated a rebuttal to neofascism and a vote for liberalism, no matter how flawed.

But although the election is over, the war is not. Le Pen will be back again; the populists and their ilk will continue fighting elsewhere in Europe, whether in Austria, Denmark or indeed the UK. It is not enough to merely make the arguments for tolerance and European co-operation. Rather, it is also about convincing the voting public that the answer to our ills — be it employment, security in work, the role of supranational institutions, or tensions with immigrant communities — does not lie in embracing the easy promises of populists or the seductive certainty of hatred.

Read more...

The Year of the New Europe

Hello readers!

Alex previously promised you two things. Firstly, that he is busy working on the new book, Fallen Love; this is a promise that Alex has kept. He has written 48,000 words, and is well on the way to finishing beta-reader suggested revisions. If you are interested in learning more about the new book, check out the “Upcoming Books” page.

But what of the second promise? Alex intended to write more about European politics. His piece on the Dutch elections was part of that—but of course Alex knows that is insufficient for you hungry readers. Thus, allow him to present his new piece on the French and German elections. Since Alex is a Red Pers editor—for those of you who don’t know, Red Pers is a Dutch newspaper startup run by local students—this piece has been published on their website.

So, without further ado: the link. Enjoy!

Politics and Agenda 2017

Hello readers!

I hope you enjoyed the guest contribution by Molly Fennig, and also my own guest post on her website. Today I am back to the usual Magical Realm fare: politics, and writing. But before we go onto the former, allow me to speak about the latter.

Fallen Love

I can now officially declare that part one of two is complete; the book is more than halfway to being finished.

This, as you can imagine, is excellent news—and it has come at no small cost to myself, as I have been most busy writing (as well as dealing with the general rough and tumble of academic life). Thankfully, my writing goals and deadlines have proven useful in motivating me.

For the time being, I am not working on Fallen Love; instead I am focusing either on academic life or on fulfilling my duties here at the Magical Realm. This is actually because I am leaving the book to rest in the drawer for a bit before I go back to revising it (and I will revise it) and to writing the second part. I have reached a milestone—but more is left to go.

Once I do begin working on it again, however, I will sadly be unable to make more than token efforts at blogging. You can blame it on the significant academic work I have to deal with—it falls on top of everything. Still, you can still follow me on Twitter (@AlexStargazerWE) as well as on Google Plus (+AlexBujorianu).

‘But Alex!’ you cry: ‘Won’t you give us any juicy details?’

Well, since you insist…

I wanted it to be a fairytale. I would love him; he would love me. We would sing happily ever after and set off into the sunshine.

But dark forces are at work. It’s not just the Party—the monstrous authoritarian regime that bans our relationship. It’s not just our Class, or our failings out, or family, or school. The boy I fell in love with might not be entirely human…

Onto Politics

I could talk about Brexit on the eve of Article 50 being declared—and with the culmination of countless ammendments, both in the Commons and the Lords, that were designed to offer a sensible Brexit but were defeated by gutless Tory MPs and a useless Opposition.

I could talk about Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon has declared that the new Independence referendum will be in Autumn 2018. I could talk about how me and my parents will vote…

But I won’t. In all honesty, I’ve written enough about that already (see: The Brexit Bus or just search ‘Brexit’ in the bar to the right). There is nothing to add, at this point, beyond more speculation: it’s time to wait and see now. Let Theresa May declare Article 50 and see if she gets her wishlist from the EU. Let the campaign for the new Independence referendum begin.

Instead I will be writing a little bit about an election closer to home: the 2017 Dutch elections. Polling day is tomorrow; and while the stakes are not that high, this election will nevertheless be important both for me and for setting the mood in 2017.

Some background is in order. The Dutch have a political system that not only includes proportional representation, but also has very few barriers to entering politics in general—there’s no lower limit to enter parliament and even the finances of standing for election are unusually liberal. This results in a political system that is extremely fragmented. No: I mean it. There are 11 (eleven) major parties. Even I, a politics aficionado, am torn—with D66, Groen Links, and even PvdA having plus points and minus points that put them on an equal footing.

I am not going to give you all a rundown of the 11 parties and their main ideologies and political positions. That would take too long; and besides, it is superfluous for our purposes. Instead, I will say this: all of the eleven parties bar two are respectable. This is not to say that I agree with them—but it is to say that they practise serious (non-populist) politics, and that they respect the fundamental tenets of modern liberal society. By this, I mean two things: secularism, and human rights. The latter involves touchy subjects like the rights of gay people and minorities.

The Christian Union is a fringe theocratic party. But the elephant in the room is the PVV (the so-called Party for Freedom and Democracy). Essentially, it is the Dutch equivalent of UKIP. Oh sure—it has some peculiarly Dutch liberal window dressing. Geert Wilders, the charismatic, comedian-like lunatic in charge of it, is happy to defend gay people and liberal democracy—from Muslim immigrants. According to him, the public enemy no.1 in the Netherlands is Islamofascism. (Public enemy no.2 is the EU.)

The trouble with the PVV is that they’re not all wrong. Islam is not the religion of peace—it hasn’t been since Muhammad and the Shia-Sunni split. It certainly isn’t good for the Middle East; indeed I and others have argued that it’s the real root of the conflicts there, more so than Western intervention—and on par with Ba’athism. And Muslim immigrants in Holland do hold some disturbing views: while 91% of the Dutch population supports same-sex marriage (Eurobarometer 2015) this is less true of the Muslim population. In the UK one study found that half of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (The Guardian).

Unfortunately, one does not fight fascism by electing fascists. And Geert Wilders has uncanny similarities with fascists: he wants to ban all Mosques, for example. Even Donald Trump hasn’t suggested that yet. (And it’s an even more extreme position than he had a few years ago, when he merely suggested height limits for mosques, and then banning the construction of new mosques). That’s not all; the rhetoric he employs is reminiscient of Hitler. Dutch mainstream politicians have betrayed ordinary Dutch people. They are all in a conspiracy with the evil Muslims. Refugees (or ‘migrants’) are an army waiting at the gates. The EU is an international plot to undermine the will of the Dutch people.

Compare this with Hitler. He also said that mainstream politicians colluded with a disparaged minority (Jews) to undermine the will of the true German people. He also believed that an international conspiracy acted to undermine the glory of the Third Reich.

Anyway, that’s enough about Wilders. Let’s ask a different question: what kind of political power will he get in this election?

Current polls put his party between 13% and 20% of the vote. This is disturbing—in the latter case the PVV would be the largest party in parliament—but par for the course for the European far right. The thing is, even if the PVV is the largest party, this isn’t saying much in the fragmented political landscape. Even 20% is a long way off 50%. And virtually no one is willing to go into coalition with him.

So the Dutch elections are really about waging a wider moral battle. The forces of liberalism and pro-Europeanism on one side (embodied especially by D66, CDA and GroenLinks)—and the force of dark nationalism on the other. While I won’t go as far as to say that the Dutch elections will influence other elections in Europe, I think it is fair to say they make for an interesting case study.

Quelle Président?

Hello readers!

Aujourd’hui Alex will give will his opinion on the French presidential elections. Why, you ask? Because Alex has a strong focus on international and, especially, European politics; and France is a key Member State. The French Président will make decisions regarding the terms of Brexit, the European response to both a revanchist Russia, and to Trump’s America. Moreover, this election is important in symbolic ways; it will give us a taste of 2017 and what it will mean for the forces of liberalism, conservatism, Marxism, and far-right nationalism.

So who is competing to become president of the République? The character cast comprises the following: a fascist, the male re-incarnation of Margaret Thatcher, two mad leftists (a post-scarcity utopian and a Marxist, respectively)... oh, and Tony Blair.

Well, not quite; this Tony Blair is French, for one. And although Blair did have fond feelings for the French—he addressed the country in French, and was given a very cordial greeting by the UMP—he was never, well, French.

Anyway, the man’s name is Emmanuel Macron. He was an investment banker before becoming an adviser for Hollande (the current president, if any of you don’t know); he was then subsequently promoted to being a Minister for the economy. But now, seeing how dismally unpopular the current president is, he’s decided to jump ship and form his own campaign (“En Marche!”).

As for the others, let me give you a quick rundown. We have Marine Le Pen, who is likely to obtain the largest number of first-round votes. She is the daughter of a fascist, and is of course a fascist herself. We also have François Fillon—the surprise candidate for France’s mainstream right, Les Républicaines—who is a Thatcherite. Lastly, we have Benoît Hamon—surprise candidate for Partide Socialiste—and Jean Luc Mélenchon, who, though an outsider, is de facto the candidate for the Communists and associated far-left politics.

So who does Alex think the French should vote for? Tony Blair, of course...

Mais Pourquoi, Alex?

This is not a particularly easy decision, in part because none of the candidates (as you may have guessed) are really ideal. But perhaps I can share my reasoning with you, and convince you to vote as such.

Let me be clear: Macron resembles Blair in more than just centrist policy and vague, feel-good rhetoric. The two are also similar in that both are quite dishonest politicians—they are masters of spin, however, and both convinced their electorates that they’re the Good Guys (TM). In Blair’s case, it was convincing everyone that he was a great, progressive politician, not beholden to corporate interests or neoliberal ideology; and in Macron’s case, it’s been about convincing the French electorate that a former investment banker is really an outsider ready to stir things up.

But even so, Macron remains the best option on the table. Allow me to firstly deal with the two main alternatives: Le Pen and Fillon.

Le Pen, as I have already said, is very, very, very bad. Her policies include (but are not limited to): dragging France out of the EU—likely destroying both entities—waging Cold War on Muslims, and ushering in an era of chest-thumping economic and political nationalism. The woman is essentially a Vichy collaborator, only her preferred foreign power is Putin’s Russia.

Fillon is basically a throwback to 1980s conservatism. Aside from his plans to cut 500,000 public sector jobs, ‘liberalise’ the labour market, and Thatcherise the economy, he also has another odious goal: to undermine gay marriage. It seems Section 28 continues on from the grave.

Once you understand who the two main candidates for the French presidency are, you will also understand my key imperative: anything but. Any of the other three candidates are preferable to these two execrable politicians.

Now, finally, onto the two remaining candidates. Hamon has been recently elected by the PS as their presidential candidate, scoring a surprise win against Manuel Valls, Hollande’s prime minister. On the surface, Hamon looks cool: he’s a radical leftwinger that beat the established candidate—a triumph of socialism over confused social democracy. But then, you look at his policies and his poll ratings. Hamon wants to a) tax robots b) reduce the working week to 32 hours and c) bring a system of universal income.

All of which would be great—if we lived in a post-scarcity society dominated by automation. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Utopia, and Hamon’s policies don’t make a whole lot of sense. Universal income would be impossible to afford unless it acts to replace social benefits, which would be idiocy: there are disabled people who need more than €750 a month to live on, and instead UBI would send money to millionaires. Taxing robots seems hard to implement, and pointless at best or Luddism at worst.

The last candidate, Mélenchon, is a nice enough guy. His platform is basically moderated Marxism: he wants to nationalise companies and regulate banks; he wants an increase in the minimum wage and also previously campaigned for a wage cap; he is a firm environmentalist, even supporting ‘degrowth’; and he wants to legalise cannabis.

I agree with most of his positions except cannabis and—more importantly—Europe. Mélenchon’s position vis-á-vis the EU is Marxist to an M: he thinks the concept of the EU is a great idea. As a supporting group, In Defence of Marxism, puts it: “Only a Socialist Federation of European States will unify the continent on a progressive basis, paving the way for a world socialist federation.” link

But, he thinks the current EU is contaminated by neoliberal economics; there needs to be a revolution, to replace the EU with the United Soviet European Socialist Republics.

Aside from being a bit bonkers, Mélenchon is polling at just over 10% of the vote. Recall the maxim I stated previously: anything but. It might be nice to have Mélenchon as president, but it’s highly unlikely he’ll be elected.

And this is the important bit: to keep Fillon out of winning the first round, Macron needs to get as much of the left vote as possible. The race is very close. The latest polls put Le Pen on around 25%, Fillon on 22%, Macron on 21%, Hamon on around 16% and Mélenchon just below him. (Poll by Kantar Sofres)

Of course you might wonder whether the latter two can team up. Unfortunately, Mélenchon is reluctant to join the PS campaign (the party is considered toxic in leftwing circles) and so this is sadly improbable. Even if it happened, there is unfortunately no guarantee that Mélenchon would beat Le Pen. He probably will—most French people don’t like her very much— but Macron is more likely to succeed in this regard. If this changes (and there have been some surprises in this election) I will reevaluate my position.

Until then, my message is this. The last thing France needs is a run off between a homophobe and a fascist. So, to the French left, I say: vote tactically. C’est la vie.

Good Morning America! (And Hello from Europe!)

Good morning America!

The phrase seems altogether appropriate on this particular morning. We have discovered—to our shock, thought not to my surprise—that a man who sexually assaults women, plans to have millions of people deported, wants to build a 3000km wall with Mexico, and intends to use nuclear weapons... has been elected President of the United States.

Several reactions are in order. I, being a citizen of an EU Member State, can open a bottle of wine and watch the fireworks. The worst that can happen to us is that we’ll need to spend a bit more money on the military (to keep the Russians under control and divorce ourselves from the Americans). The citizens of the US should be shocked today, but not for too long: Trump’s victory is not such a big surprise, and taking him down will require a cool head and a smart electoral strategy.

In this regard, I wish to propose some courses of action for the American left.

What should the Americans do now?

To begin curing a disease, one must first ascertain its causes. So: why did Donald Trump win? The following is not a entirely comprehensive or fully detailed account, but it underlies the main reasons:

Prejudice

Sorry folks, but this one cannot be ignored. An important reason why Trump won was because he gave voice to the prejudices of millions of Americans. White people saw him talk about Muslims, Mexicans and Blacks, and they thought ‘Hey! That’s what I always thought! Finally, a president who gets it—Muslims are terrorists, Mexicans are bad hombres, and who wants their little white girl to sit next to some big, overgrown Negro?’ (Yes, I’m quoting Eisenhower.)

Personality politics

I always thought that the Americans’ penchance for personality politics would prove their undoing; and here I am, proven right. Sure: Trump is a ‘pussy-grabber’ and a morally bankrupt businessman (hehe) but he also has a personality that many Americans find appealing. When he does funny caricatures of disabled people (they’re deeply offensive but they are funny), or comes out with some big, beautiful, nationalist jingoism—Americans love that. (One could draw an analogy between Hitler’s cult of personality.)

Sexism.

This is not the dominant reason here—Trump’s election is about politics, not about men being better than women—but I think it did play a part. If Clinton had been a man, I doubt the Republican smears on her would have been as effective. But something about her personality grated on people: she reminded men of the ‘nagging wife,’ and women of a heartless, childless bitch. It was easier to paint her as dishonest because she was a woman.

Economics

The Marxists were wrong when they said that politics, and history, is the endgame of class; prejudice and personality are just as important. But economics did a play a role here—and it is sometimes overlooked. Most white people are not privileged (as so many theorists misleadingly claim). This is for the simple fact that most white people aren’t rich, and in America, money talks. Americans were angry—angry that jobs went to China and Mexico, and that their standard of living had been eroded by financial crises.

Courses of Action

There are several things the American left should do after this calamity. Let’s begin with the first: concerted opposition. This will unfortunately be difficult as the Republicans control both the executive branch of the US government, and both houses of the legislative. Moreover it is possible that some Supreme Court justices will bugger off and die; Trump will then appoint new ones (and you can be sure they won’t be good judges).

The only options in the immediate term, therefore, are the following:

1. Legal battles. Trump has plenty to be held to account for—he was accused of raping a 13-year old girl, sexually molesting several women, and he bragged about not paying taxes. A lawsuit on one or more of those issues might get him impeached.
2. Protest. Put Trump under pressure: organise large scale protests. See how he reacts.
3. Work with ‘moderate’ Republicans (let’s say ‘Trump-hostile’ since there there’s no such thing as a moderate Republican). Block Trump’s Bills in the Senate and in the HoR.

In the longer-term, the American left needs to do the following:

1. Get people to register as Democrats so they can vote in the next Democratic nominations. Remember, the Democratic party blocked non-registered voters from voting because polling showed they would have preferred Bernie Sanders; let’s remember that lesson.
2. Kill the pundits. Okay, I’m speaking metaphorically here. The pundits have been preaching from the same hymn sheet for decades now: American politics is all about appealing to the centre, they say. Trump wouldn’t win the Republican nomination, and certainly not the election. And Clinton could appeal to centrist voters—Sanders was too radical. Well, all that turned out to be disastrously wrong.
3. Nominate Bernie Sanders? Or at least some other likable left-wing politician.
4. Campaign hard. Trump has shown to the world that Americans are thick racists (as has Brexit for the UK). This needs to change. The left needs to persuade people that Mexicans are people just like us, that Blacks are not a bunch of criminals, and that the kind of chauvinistic misogyny which Trump displayed is badly out of date.

What about the EU?

Finally, I shall briefly address what we in Europe need to do. I see three key areas where we need to rethink our policies:

The military

This is the big one. Trump thinks NATO is America paying for Europe’s defence (and not entirely untruthfully, might I add) and he seems to have a liking for Vladimir Putin; this is bad news.

The EU can entertain diplomatic talks at the emergency summit they’ve invited Trump to: but let’s face reality here. Trump has stated his intentions clearly, and there’s not much diplomacy can do. The EU needs to spend more on the military, go forward with plans to e.g. have a common EU R&D fund for defence research, and we may even have to contemplate the extreme option of scrapping NATO and getting our own EU army.

Foreign policy.

There’s no telling what diplomatic gaffe Trump will perform, or what he’ll do in Syria; the EU needs to consider any and all possibilities.

Oh, and Federica Mogherini (the EU foreign policy head) needs a security detail—in case Trump tries to grab her pussy...

Internal politics

This is another big one—it’s possible that Trump’s victory will translate to electoral success for our own fascist parties (namely FN, AfD, etc.)

I am actually rather doubtful of this claim; Brexit was said to increase anti-EU sentiment on the Continent, but it actually did the opposite. We need to wait and see how Trump will really affect domestic EU politics.

I suspect he won’t—Europeans don’t really care that much about American politics. Europhobia has roots in migration (both intra-EU but mainly outside of EU), economic vicissitudes, the refugee crisis, and a host of other complex internal issues. Trump might make Farage, Wilders and Le Pen feel good, but he will not suddenly drive Europeans to insanity.

Conclusion

Okay, that’s it for today folks. I will at a later date address Brexit and Trump—together, for there will be some inter-relation. In the following weeks I suggest you pour yourselves some wine (or whiskey if you’re American) and entertain yourselves with my upcoming new edition of the Necromancer. That will be out over the weekend, more likely, since Trump will be hogging up the airwaves and make it difficult to promote.

Until then, may the stars watch over you.

Vote Hillary Clinton

Hello readers!

You may be wondering what Alex is up to. How goes the new edition of the Necromancer? Will it be out this November? Has Alex contacted reviewers and built up an audience?

The answer to all those questions is of course yes: I have been most occupied with republishing the new edition of the Necromancer. However, as you may be able to guess, that is not the topic of this post. Rather, it is indeed—as the title alludes—to that most vexing of political questions: American presidential elections.

Alex’s reasons for entertaining this topic are relatively straightforward: American elections are more important than, say, Icelandic elections; and this particular election has some particularly interesting politics involved. Being a student of political science, I am inevitably drawn to it.

Anyway, let’s proceed to the introduction.

Introduction

Ordinarily, I do not partake in American politics. I don’t write about it; I scarcely even follow it; and I don’t waste time thinking about it. The reasons are multifold—the most compelling is that I live 5000 kilometres away. And directly inline with that, I don’t consider them relevant to my life.

Oh sure: American politics is Trumped up (yes, I know) to no end. But in reality, the French, German, Spanish and Italian elections—while rather less glamorous—are far more important in the scope of European politics. They will determine the deal that Britain gets after Brexit, or the EU funds available to construct infrastructure projects in Romania, or the specifics of monetary policy that affect Dutch exporters.

This leads me to my third gripe with American politics: it is excessively sensationalised. In fact it resembles not so much an election as a national popularity contest (intermixed with a healthy dose of showbiz, naturally). It’s hard to take seriously—the unseriousness of it is terribly offputting.

Another explanation may be my own personal politics. I am a Socialist; I make Bernie Sanders look like a laidback moderate. Being far to the left of the American political spectrum can make the whole debate resemble a popularity contest between a billionaire whose favourite colour is red, and another who prefers blue.

I admit it does breed a certain contempt. I do not speak here of nationalism, or even the voguish Anti-Americanism of the kind espoused by critics of American foreign policy. I mean an ideological contempt; the whole of American politics seems altogether sordid to me. The eminent HL Mencken, an American strongly critical of that nation’s government, put it more eloquently than I:

In the present case it is a little inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in the Republic

But, let us move on. Now that you know my background and the perspective I am approaching the issue from, allow me to elucidate on my stance.

Clinton versus Trump: Crook versus Crook?

On one side of the arena we have Donald Trump. He is a walking embodiment of every American stereotype I’ve come across: unctuously nationalist, blatantly avaricious, clearly ignorant, spectacularly sexist, and of course racist.

Opposing him, there is Hillary Clinton. Numerous criticisms have been levelled at her: she’s arrogant, hawkish, and in the pockets of Wall Street. The narrative of some among the American left—and several commentators of various political stripes here on the Continent—is that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Crook versus crook, or perhaps even Satan versus the Devil.

This narrative is plausible, but wrong.

It is, in fact, dangerously wrong. You may be surprised to hear this: after all, am I not a Socialist? How can I possibly support Hillary Clinton?

You’d be right on one level—I would have preferred a Sanders presidency. Nonetheless, we must deal with what we have. The registered Democrats chose not to elect Sanders, so now the US must face a stark choice: the presidency of a moron, bully, and megalomaniac; or the presidency of a less than ideal woman.

And that, at the end of the day, is the reality. Clinton is not the devil. I do not mean to say that she is perfect—indeed her links to Wall Street all but guarantee she won’t try anything too radical. America needs someone better than Clinton. The millions in poverty, and the grotesque face of American inequality, will not be resolved by a little centrist tinkering.

Incidentally, I am aware that Clinton’s language has become more Berniesque following her succession to the Democratic mantle. Some of it is genuine: she does strongly support the right of a woman to have an abortion, or the need for serious gun control.

I don’t believe she will usher a new era in economic thought, however—that was Bernie’s ticket. Clinton is just a centrist employing the language of the left, because it is politically expedient to do so. This is not to disparage her necessarily—sometimes it is smart to make the right noises—but merely to highlight that Clinton’s plans for a fair economy are grounded more in rhetoric than in real substance.

But for all that, the woman is still infinitely preferable to the alternative.

It’s not just that she’s less bad; that she’s not misogynistic, racist, or actively engaged in trampling over the proletariat by dodging taxes and outsourcing to Mexico. (Ironically, in the case of the latter.)

The woman is genuinely a nicer alternative. Despite some of her politics, there is a great deal to commend in her. She is highly competent, having proven herself in various roles of upper government; her grasp of public policy is strong, particularly in (for example) carbon-free energy and corporate taxation; and while not likely to shake the nest too much, she is also unlikely to bring it down.

A particularly striking example of the latter would be foreign policy. Trump’s misdeavours in this regard are almost without parallel: from building a wall with Mexico, weakening NATO, being friends with the Russian kleptocracy, and—worst of all—threatening to use nuclear weapons render him temperamentally unfit to be president.

Some of us here in the Continent are sadly naive about Trump’s foreign policy regime. Typically, these are young, naive, left-leaning students who are angry with Clinton’s interventions in Iraq and Libya.

Even setting aside the complexities of those cases—and they are complex, far beyond the narrow-minded narratives of the Anti-American psyche—believing that Donald Trump will be better in this regard is foolish, to put it mildly. It’s not just that the man is foolhardy, ignorant, and has a towering vanity matched only by his nationalist fervour; it’s that Trump is fundamentally more inclined to war than even Hillary Clinton.

One should not confuse Trump’s professed trade isolationism with military isolationism. Throughout history, the two have been rather distinct. Trump may want to build a wall and impose tariffs—but he also wants to spend money in the military, and put it to use fighting Isis. He does, after all, regularly attack Clinton for being too soft on terrorists. Is that really what you want, Stop the War advocates?

The Third Party Question

The final question I wish to address is that of the alternative: why not vote for a third party?

There are two very good reasons for why you shouldn’t. The first is often repeated: in the American electoral system, a vote for Jill Stein is de facto a vote for Trump, and a vote for Johnson is de facto a vote for Clinton.

The other reason—which is perhaps even better—is that the other two candidates are piss-poor. Johnson, a libertarian, is no better than Trump: his socioeconomic policy will prove a disaster so profound even Trump won’t be able to match it. People will literally die of cold, hunger, and disease on America’s streets. (And let’s not even touch on the man’s ignorance of Aleppo, documented live on television.)

As for Jill Stein? She lives in cloud cuckoo land. 100% renewable energy by 2030? Impossible: there is nowhere near enough storage capacity in the grid to allow it. Creating 20 million jobs by doing it? Pure fantasy. A return to 18th century agriculture? The world will starve.

Conclusion

My conclusion mirrors my title: vote Hillary Clinton. Of course I do not hand out my recommendation without caveats (you should know that I always caveat). The woman isn’t perfect: her economic policy will not be sufficient to deal with that country’s problems; her record on LGBT rights is complex; and there is reason to be weary of her links with Wall Street. America is a corrupt country. (Yes, it’s true.)

But if the worst that can be said about Hillary is that she’s not ideal, than far worse can be leveled against Trump: diplomatically, he would be a disaster; in foreign policy there’s no telling what he would do; and his economic policy will be worse than Hillary’s. Clinton just won’t make things much better than they are; Trump will make sure they worsen.

Aside from being unfit to lead, the man himself is odious. He’s a corrupt businessman who bankrupted himself 70 times and doesn’t pay taxes; he believes Mexicans are rapists; he thinks all Muslims are unconditionally evil; and he likes to grope women. The only good thing I can say about him is that he’s not homophobic.

And for all of Hillary’s problems, I like her. She’s competent—and I deeply admire competence. Her position on renewable energy, climate change, and fracking is one I find particularly well-informed. One need not vote for her with an upturned nose; in fact she will make a decent President, no worse than the others that have gone before her.

Anyway, that’s it for today. I will conclude with a warming, handed out by HL Mencken eighty years ago, but still all too relevant today:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

On Free Speech

Hello readers!

You may be wondering what Alex has been doing these past couple of days. He has already spoken on his experience thus far at university; but what, you wonder, of his writing? Has the Ark been assiduously extended and revised?

The answer to this question is of course: I have been busy writing the first chapter of part three, and have made changes regarding the tense for the prologue. If you wish to discover more, however, I will repeat what I have said previously. Signup to the mailing list and you will be able to actually read some of what I am writing, as well as get access to exclusive content.

Anyway, the topic of this post is of course not the Ark. Rather, it is about an age old issue recently inflamed into passion: free speech.

The articles that spurred me to write this are, in particular, the piece over at the LRB by David Bromwich, along with this piece in the Guardian. (And yes, I read the Guardian and the LRB almost exclusively. Quality media is a rare thing these days.)

I will begin by addressing the key arguments these authors propose, and complete this (hopefully succinct) essay by elaborating on my own position. So, without further ado, let us turn our attention to the business at hand.

Social Media and the Prophet Muhammad

I believe there are two key points that Bromwich makes in his piece on the LRB: the first is that social media is an ‘echo chamber’ (to use that popular political terminology). On social media, unlike real life, you interact only with people you agree with. Your ideas are met only with acquiescence; and so, gradually, you begin to go a little mad. Your ideas grow more and more extreme, ever further out of touch with ordinary people.

Or at least that’s the narrative Bromwich buys into. However, I am far from convinced, and question Bromwich’s experience with social media. From what I can see, there are two issues with this narrative. Firstly—in real life, as much as anywhere, one can live in a bubble.

People tend to prefer interactions with others like them. Be it in terms of class, education, or even political leanings, bubbles exist throughout the real world. Accusations of politicians ‘being out of touch’ would lack their rhetorical power were it not for this.

Secondly, while I agree that social media can act as an echo chamber, the opposite also holds true. The Internet allows us to interact with people who are very different from us—indeed, its capability to do so is unprecedented: nowhere else can one hold a conversation with someone from the other side of the world.

The second point Bromwich makes is exemplified by this paragraph:

Here is a thought experiment. What would be the Western reaction to a cartoonist who leaned heavily on the most flagrant anti-Catholic or anti-Jewish clichés – Jesuits in cowl and robe conspiring to set a Catholic king on the English throne, or Jews drinking the blood of a Christian child? The anti-Catholic swipe would be looked on as a bizarre eccentricity, of no controversial interest at all; the anti-Jewish one might prompt alarm as a symptom of cultural regression; but in either case, ascription of moral courage and artistic merit would be out of the question. This may suggest why the defence of Charlie Hebdo as an equal-opportunity offender was misjudged. The cartoons were published at a time when a few Muslims were known to be terrorists and many others were outsiders in European society, exposed to prejudice of a kind no longer suffered by Christians or Jews. Complacency was a recurrent flaw in the European and North American praise of the cartoons. There is, after all, a difference between ridicule of the established and mockery of the unestablished. Though the difference can never rightly be reflected in laws, since laws must apply to everyone in the same way, Charlie Hebdo might have served to bring the matter to consciousness. [sic]

I am, once more, skeptical. Comparing anti-Catholic, or even anti-Jewish satire with the kind of satire that Charlie Hebdo published is, frankly, a stretch. Catholics have not conspired to treason in Western countries for centuries. And anti-Semitic tropes—such as of the aforementioned drinking of babies’ blood, or of the international cabal, the usurious banker—all share one crucial property. They’re false.

But tropes about Muslims are not false. That’s where the line between Islamophobia and genuine liberal criticism needs to be drawn. Jews don’t run the world; but Muslims do issues fatwas (death threats based on heresy) to Danish cartoonists. Muslims do try to butcher said cartoonist with a hatchet, and they do kill certain cartoonists with AK-47s and RPGs. (Cough cough.)

This I believe is the crucial, and unfortunate misunderstanding about Charlie Hebdo. One may argue that sometimes they go too far. One may argue that they can be crude, or stereotype lazily. But at the end of the day, they have a point: Islam can’t tolerate criticism, no matter how justified.

Anyway, although I disagree with the author on these two counts, I do fundamentally agree with the broad stroke of his argument: that free speech is a political good to be valued. I will clarify this further by considering the arguments of Garton Ash in the Guardian.

Safe Spaces, or Free Speech?

Ostensibly it seems absurd that the fear of being offended—of trying to hide under the language of intellectual cowardice—should trump the political right to speak one’s mind. And this is indeed the thrust of Garton Ash’s argument.

But I feel the issue is not quite so clear cut. As Garton Ash puts it, how can someone giving a speech on the other side of campus possibly affect you? And yet that’s naive. Consider the example of transgender people. If someone of an anti-trans persuasion were to deliver a hateful speech against transgender people, there would be those who would be inspired by it. These bigots would in turn bully—and this is a light word for a serious issue—trans people, and we would see trans people killing themselves in even greater numbers than they already do. (Suicide is not a joke. This article is one of many showing disturbing statistics.)

The same could apply for any other persecuted minority you care to name. Should a radical Imam, for example, be allowed to foment hatred against gay people? Should he be allowed to suggest that women deserve rape? Should they, indeed, be allowed to promote terrorism?

Of course I am not talking about all Muslims here, let that be known. But the liberal left—who, ironically enough, are the ones calling for safe spaces—are in denial about terrorism. There exists a dangerous minority of radical Muslims in this country and around the world; and throwing petrol to their fire is nothing to joke about. Nor, indeed, is pretending that extremely disturbing attitudes (such as on homosexuality, the rights of women, and Shariah) aren’t prevalent in Muslim communities.

Anyway, I’m digressing.The point here is that the line between speech and action is sometimes very fine. It is why I support incitement-type laws (incitement to racial hated, incitement to violence, that sort of thing), and more broadly the principle that an institution—such as a university—has a responsibility towards its students to indeed keep them safe from violence or verbal abuse.

But: this is not to say that a university has a responsibility to protect its students from ideas that are merely controversial, offensive, or intellectually discomforting. The line is a fine one, and I believe it fair to say a difficult one, but it is a line nevertheless.

That is the prime topic of this little essay. However, there are one or two other things related to the issue that I wish to address.

The Crime of the Micro

The language employed by the liberal left, and more specifically (since the liberal left is itself a broad church) that of the Social Justice Warriors, is increasingly worrying. I am of course talking about such terms as the ‘microtrauma,’ the ‘microaggression,’ and the ‘trigger warnings’.

For those of you unacquainted, the basic definitions of the the terms is as following. A microtrauma is basically a social insult committed by a member of the Privileged Class (in the SJW hierarchy) to a member of the Oppressed Class. An example would be a white person not looking at a black person in a way that might be considered rude.

A microaggression is, similarly, an instance where a white person looks too closely at a black person, in such a way that it may be construed as offensive. And a trigger warning concerns sensitive subjects such as sexual assault, which may unduly distress the students.

If all of this is making you scratch your head, welcome to the club. To understand the kind of censorship the SJWs are proposing, and why it increasingly concerns academics, you need to understand this context. If an SJW sees oppression in the most trivial and harmless of social encounters, what do you think their reaction is to, say, a feminist icon arguing against trans women—let alone a hate preacher?

So yes: I will re-iterate my original point. We don’t need to give a platform to those who pose a real danger to the safety of our student body. But nor must we dream oppression where there is none; a balance must be struck.

But the Better Argument Will Win!

Finally, I will address the arguments that some of the more radical defenders of free speech provide.

The classic argument is, of course, the following. Provided that free speech is permitted, it is ineluctably the case that the weak arguments shall be dissected, discredited, and displaced by the more convincing arguments.

The theory is wonderful; the reality is not so rosy. The best historical example of this is of course the Holocaust. Hitler’s political narrative did, as historical fact shows, win out. He won two referendums—to extend his power and have Germany leave the League of Nations—with large majorities. His Nationalsozialistische partei was the largest in the Reichstag, having won the 1933 Federal election with 44% of the vote.

To defend themselves against this charge, proponents of the argument above engage in some creative intellectual gymnastics. The reason Hitler won, they say, is because there was no free speech!

Aside from being somewhat tautological, the key issue with this argument is its lack of historical veracity. It is true that Hitler engaged in censorship, but this was not true of the early years when Hitler was not in power. Remember: Hitler didn’t gain power through the means of a military coup. His power was democratic before it became autocratic.

I will therefore ask that one should not assume that good arguments will automatically displace poor arguments, as if by some natural process of osmosis. In the real world, people can be misinformed, stupid, ignorant and indoctrinated.

However...

At the same time, there is a valuable political good in free speech. On a first point of order, intellectual strength: any intellectual institution that censors the controversial is bound to end up decaying, its foundations undermined by dogma and unreason.

The second point of order is political—history may teach us that free speech is not an antidote to madness, but its lack often leads to political repression, and tends to be the purlieu of the autocratic regime.

At times, I would argue, it may make sense to limit some forms of free speech. Hate speech, as I have already mentioned; and indeed, in Germany as in many European countries, Holocaust denial continues to be illegal. Balance, as I say.

A Few More Distinctions

Often in debates about free speech, some important distinctions fail to be made.

Firstly, the oppression of free speech has a specific definition: it is committed by the state. An institution, like a university, ‘No-Platforming’ a speaker may sometimes be an act of intellectual cowardice, but it is not the repression of free speech. It is, as the name implies, about not giving someone a platform.

Even when the repression of speech does occur at the state level—such as when the German government bans Holocaust denial—it is not, by necessity, oppressive. Of course not! Unlike what the more radical defenders of absolute freedom of speech like to claim, jailing Neo-Nazis does not an authoritarian state make.

It is possible—emphasis on the word possible—that allowing Neo-Nazis and other such unsavoury figures to speak their mind can, indeed, lead to them being discredited: the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffiths, was so undermined when he was interviewed by the BBC.

But not always. As I say, there are no absolutes in free speech.

Conclusion

My essay has been somewhat long, I’m sorry to say, but I hope it has made clear my thoughts on free speech—and, hopefully, inspired you to think through your attitude to free speech.

Any disagreement (and I would be surprised if some of you did not disagree) and I will be happy to respond on the comments section. Remember: be civil. Alex is the autocrat of the Magical Realm, and thus has the power to censor all that he wishes ;)

Yes, Prime Minister

Hello readers!

My previous posts were concerned with the state of my upcoming novel, the Ark, as well as my experiences here in Amsterdam. This post is not about that; there is little to add so far. It is instead about a matter that I will still occasionally address here on the Magical Realm—that of British politics.

I have devised a hypothesis: the more I analyse British politics, the stranger it all seems. I liken it to an addiction; it fascinates me to no end. Anyway, the topics I will be addressing here are threefold. Firstly—the Brexit. (This is obviously the overarching factor behind a lot of this, and it will likely remain an issue for many years to come.) Secondly—the Labour leadership. And finally, May’s plans to bring back the grammars.

The Brexit

These past few weeks have seen three important, if unsurprising, announcements. We firstly know that May’s Cabinet is divided and does not know exactly what it wants from the negotiations (let alone how to achieve it).

Secondly, we have learnt that the US is prioritising trade discussions with the EU before the UK. (Suck it up, Brexiteers.) And thirdly, the Japanese government has published an open letter from its business leaders warning that Japanese companies in the UK—like Nissan—will ‘reconsider their investments’ (i.e. leave) if the UK does not maintain single market access.

So what’s the outlook on all this? It looks rather dim from where I’m standing. The naive amongst us may think this will provoke May (if not the Brexiteers, whose delusion is without bounds) to make keeping the UK’s single-market access a priority. But I do not believe this is the case; May has been adamant that ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

What precisely this means if not entirely clear, but it’s safe to assume it will involve some sort of migration controls—and by implication curtailed access to the single market.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of commentators—and it seems some Tories—believe that May is a secret Remainer: that her appointments of BoJo, Foxy and Davey (collectively, the three Brexiteers—like from Musketeers, you know?) are really just a clever ruse to abrogate political responsibility when the negotiations inevitably fail to deliver on the Brexiteers’ insouciant fantasy. Giving them rope to hang themselves with, so to speak.

This may sound plausible, but I don’t find it particularly credible. For me, the skepticism stems from what I know of Theresa May’s personality. She’s not the quiet, sensible and competent woman she likes to pretend she is. Her support for Remain, if we recall, was lukewarm at best.

Rather, what I see in Theresa is Cruella. As Home Secretary, she was involved in many questionable deportations—and was held in contempt of court for one of those deportations (Wikipedia, ‘Deportation decisions’). She planned to introduce a £37,000 a year salary requirement for non-EU immigrants, putting many NHS nurses at threat of deportation. She refused to grant asylum to a Nigerian lesbian who faced serious danger back home. (Telegraph) And—she was a proponent for scrapping the Human Rights Act, something which she can now do outside the EU.

Her support for Remain may have been entirely politically expedient (Cameron was pro-EU after all, and she was a senior figure in the Cabinet). Or, barring that, we can at least say that it was a reluctant position born of political realism.

So in light of this, I see the following scenario as being most probable. Firstly, after a delayed and protracted period, May invokes Article 50; in the negotiations, she and her Brexiteers argue for a cap on migration, but the EU refuses. ‘Free movement or WTO’ is the EU’s position.

So, May pulls the UK out of the EU, and loses access to the Common Market. Not long after, the UK will see recession, followed by stalled growth. The SNP call a referendum, and Scotland leaves the UK in order to keep its place in Europe.

As for the rest... I can only speculate at this point. But I doubt it will be pretty.

Labour Leadership

The other big thing going on is of course the leadership contest. In about two weeks, voting will have closed and we will discover who is leader of the Labour party.

I have already made clear my support for Smith in previous posts, and indeed—I’ve already voted for him. I will therefore address two things here. Firstly, what is the nature of the support for Corbyn—and can Smith win? Secondly, if Corbyn does win, what will happen next?

With regards to Corbyn’s support, I think it is fair to say Corbynism is one of the most misunderstood political phenomena in British history. The commentariat are dreaming about a revived British Trotskyism. Even his own MPs don’t understand the nature of his support—cue Tom Watson’s conspiracy theory about ‘old hands twisting young arms’.

Let’s make this clear: there’s a lot I don’t like about Corbyn’s movement (and for good reason) but Corbynism is not some conspiracy by entryist Trots and Tories. The number of Tories that voted in the leadership contest was vanishingly small. And I don’t believe there are enough Trots in this country to influence an electorate of 600,000.

Rather, Corbyn’s base is made up of what I see as two similar, though distinct, support groups. The first is an influx of generally young, idealistic and politically naive people. Some of them are ‘champagne socialists,’ but from my experience the majority are people who have been continually let down by successive governments: I’m talking about students with £27K of debt, young adults struggling to get on the housing market, and of course the numpties who are still banging on about Iraq.

The second group is made up of long-time Labour party members. I know some of them who voted for David Milliband in the leadership election. I know a lot of them who voted Tony Blair when he was standing for leadership.

The former group should not surprise you, but why, do you wonder, does Corbyn have support from the latter group? Surely, you would think, no one can vote for Blair and then for Corbyn!

Well, the reality in British politics is that electorates aren’t ideological: they judge political candidates not on whether they are socialist, Third Way liberal, or anything else. They judge them on the way the candidate can improve the country and their lives (as they judge it).

Tony Blair was seen as a charismatic and likable politician who beat the Tories. Ed Milliband was seen by many as a bit boring; there was little to recommend in him.

One thing that is true, however, is that the old guard of Corbyn supporters almost universally despise the Tony Blair of today. The Iraq war is a big reason for that, obviously; but just as importantly, I’ve found, were his failures to undo neoliberalism (it’s not stated like that, usually, but the angry words about unions and banks are getting at it) along with his craven support for dictators and big money.

The reason Corbyn appeals to them is twofold. To the young, he speaks a narrative that they have never heard: he speaks of undoing tuition fees, fighting against big business tax dodging, and bringing a brighter future to their cloudy prognosis. To the old, they see the antithesis of Blair: a man with integrity.

So, the million dollar question. Can Smith win them over?

On one level, it should be possible. Smith is compassionate as well as realistic; he understands why people are angry (just check out his plans to scrap tuition fees and help young people with housing) but he also knows that Corbyn is politically naive—his plans to scrap Trident being just one foolhardy example.

Smith is obviously more charismatic than Corbyn. In more normal circumstances, he should easily convince the young to vote for him.

So why aren’t the polls showing this? It’s to do with the circumstances of the leadership contest. Corbyn faced a vote of no-confidence and lost, with 80% (!) of his parliamentary colleagues saying they have no faith in him. Rational people would see this as enough reason to seriously question his role as leader; the fact that many in his Shadow Cabinet resigned, leaving him unable to fill all of the portfolios, should make Corbyn a laughing stock.

Don’t believe me? Just read the articles by Thangam Debonaire and Heidi Alexander. The picture they paint is sobering: Corbyn is incompetent, appointing and then sacking Debonaire without telling her (and while she was getting treatment for cancer!), and repeatedly undermining S. Cabinet positions on air.

But Corbyn’s backers drew the opposite conclusion from these facts. To them, Debonaire and Alexander were dangerous Blairites—not ordinary Labour MPs—determined to backstab the Great Leader and undermine his Holy Mission. (I am exaggerating here, but only a little.)

Owen Smith they saw as a false socialist, a conjuring by the Blairite devils to sway the people from the true path. His policies and ideas could not be genuine, they reasoned. His dealings with Pfizer were proof of that. (By that account, Clement Attlee could not have been a socialist, because he was an aristocrat. In real life, of course, things are more complicated than that.)

I’m not saying Smith is perfect; he has flaws just like anyone else. But I believe the anger and hope that drove people to Corbyn has morphed into something more sinister: a kind of paranoia, so typical of the far left, coupled with a misty eyed appreciation of Corbyn.

Corbyn, it seems, is immune from rational criticism. In my logic classes, we would call it the fallacy of ‘Ad hominem: poisoning the well’. In other words, anyone who criticises Corbyn must be some sort of Blairite/Red Tory/backstabber.

So, personally, I don’t think Smith will win.

But if so, what do we do? Do we united behind Corbyn—and pretend all of this sort of never happened? Do we try and get rid of him through underhand means, with the threat of forming a new party?

Like Smith, I think the latter is a bad idea. Corbyn and McDonnell—along with the Progress rump—are both crazy enough to not stand down, and to actually split. That would be disastrous.

So, we get behind Corbyn. We go along with his policies; we stop penning nasty articles in the rightwing press. (That includes you, Simon Danczuk.) We try and do our best in his incompetent Shadow Cabinet. If Corbyn fails to win the general election, it would be on his account—not ours.

Grammar Grammar

Let us move away from Labour’s internecine conflict, and onto a recent policy unveiled by the dear Theresa.

I am of course talking about the (re) introduction of the grammar school. It is currently a topic of great debate among the commentariat; her political motives are being extensively scrutinised.

I’m not going to pay much attention to that. My intention here is only to consider the grammar school on the basis of its merit, as someone who has been to both a grammar school and a comprehensive.

You know what I think? The grammar school is not such a great idea. I am unconvinced by the claim that grammar schools improve the outcomes of the children who are selected into it (compared to a comprehensive); this is partly due to a lack of convincing statistical evidence, but also because of personal experience.

I was successful academically in my comprehensive. I got very high grades in maths and sciences; I had a strong interest in writing and reading, which the school library was able to suffice (for the most part).

Smart children in comprehensives are not forced to learn with the idiots; in my school, we separated the more academically able children into sets 0 and 1, and the less able going up the sets, until you hit set 6. (The children there were mentally disabled, or had alcoholic parents.)

You might argue that this just selection under a different system. Well yes; that’s the point. Selection in a grammar school is the very worst kind of selection. It happens at age 11; it leaves late developers behind. It places a lot of stress on primary-school age children. And, since the children are not adults and have no motivation of their own, it is basically a measure of how much money the parents put into tutoring their kid.

But that’s not the worst of it. The test is far from infallible; it is not only vulnerable to the efforts of tutors, but it actually requires tutoring. I—who got 12 GCSEs, mainly As and As, am attending a top 100 world university, got poetry published *and wrote a book at 15—failed the 11+! My parents, who are mathematicians, struggled with the so-called ‘non verbal reasoning’.

To top it all off, once the tutoring got you through the 11+, you were thrown into a bubble. Nearly everyone is middle class. You don’t interact with people from different social backgrounds; people who are poor, whose parents are very unlike yours, and who seem to be very different from you.

So you see, getting selected into a grammar school is not necessarily that good for you.

Nor is it any good for the people who don’t get selected: they go to a comprehensive where much of the talent has been creamed off. While enough bright kids usually remain in order to form a class, I do believe that since the majority of the kids are lower down the academic and social pecking order, they—the poor kids—also live in a sort of bubble. They don’t see that much of the bright kids (which are a minority), and think that getting a couple of Cs and Ds at GCSE is somehow acceptable. Their friends did the same, right?

Closing Thoughts

I have written quite enough on British politics for now. I will address it in future, but for now I have work to do on the Ark. Wish me luck. And if you haven’t already, consider signing up to the mailing list.

Here There Be Politics

Hello readers!

I have, alas, not written a great deal on the Magical Realm as of late. This is, once more, down to the fact that I am in the countryside. Remote Romanian countryside, that is to say. I have had Internet only sporadically—the town hall has Internet, but it’s a fair walk through nearly 40 degree heat.

The infernal heat has also kept me grounded here for an unexpectedly long while. My grandma, you see, does not fancy going back to civilisation; she believes the heat will be even more intolerable in the brick-and-mortar confines of our apartment.

Thus I have not been able to write to you. However, I have taken this opportunity to write about British politics. I will address two topics herewith: the Labour Leadership, and a few more words about the Brexit. In particular, I will answer the following two questions. Is Owen Smith a better candidate than Corbyn? And what of May’s negotiations?

JC Versus Smith

Through the following weeks, Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith will engage in hustings. Thursday this week is when the first debate is scheduled. They will then, hopefully, clarify their economic and political positions—I’m talking mainly Smith here—and engage in some healthy debate. They may even argue over a question that I’ve posed to them: you can thank the party’s crowdfunded questions for that.

But before all that, what is my preliminary position? What do I think of Owen Smith? Is he a man to lead party and people—or is he a false flag, a Miliband 2.0?

Well, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that is he probably not a second coming of Ed Miliband. At the very least, his style is very different: where Miliband was timid and shy, almost to the point of unsociableness, Smith is clear, articulate and well-spoken. He does resemble Nye Bevan—a charismatic Welshman with a penchance for socialism. (I am certain Smith will be quite flattered by the comparison; Nye Bevan is his hero.)

As for the concrete details of his policy, there’s not much we can say about that now. The only policy he’s so far advocated is a £200B public investment scheme. Ordinarily this wouldn’t classify him as a socialist in particular, but in the current austerity-dominated political climate—well, it’s more radical than what Miliband proposed, in any case.

I would however be surprised if he doesn’t advocate other socialist policies: nationalisation, increased tax on high incomes and capital gains, clamping down on tax evasion, and the defence of the welfare state. These are all quite mainstream positions—and perfectly reasonable for a leader of the Labour party to support.

I do expect him to go against some of Corbyn’s more extreme, unpopular, or simply irrelevant policies. He’ll keep Trident (he’s said as much), he’ll keep us in NATO, he’ll keep the monarchy, and he won’t compare the Israeli state to Hitler.

That alone will be enough to avoid a good part of the bad press Corbyn’s received. This is not say he won’t get any bad press: Murdoch and Dacre will surely find something with which to smear him. However, at least he’ll avoid the mudslinging from the likes of the Guardian, the Observer, New Statesman, and possibly the Times.

And finally, Smith should be able to do a much better job on the PMQs. This time, Labour will be ready for Cruella Theresa May.

So my message here is pretty clear: I think Smith is a better candidate than Corbyn. This is not to say that Smith will necessarily become the Prime Minister. The battle Labour will have to fight will not be easy—the Brexit electoral landscape, as I’ve said previously, is a difficult one.

This is especially true since Smith—like any serious modern day Labour politician—is a Europhile. I am confident he can take on Farron for the Remain voters; but what of the Leavers? He will have to convince at least some of them to vote Labour in order to win the next General Election.

But for all this, I’m actually pretty confident in Owen Smith. He seems both competent and personable—a plausible contender for PM-in-waiting. And honestly, considering the leadership contenders past—Burnham, Cooper, Kendall—I am confident in saying that he’s probably Labour’s best bet.

May and Brexit

I have to say that May’s Brexit strategy does amuse me, even if it is entirely predictable. Firstly, the appointed BoJo as Foreign Secretary, and Liam the Fox as International Trade Secretary. As an act of internal politics, it is shrewd: she can keep her party united, and the Brexiteer’s (all but inevitable) failure she can blame on them.

But as an act of national and international politics, it is not a good move. Boris has already been called a liar by the French foreign minister; he is not popular across the Channel. And the Fox is both arrogant and delusional: a poor negotiator of the nation’s future.

Then there’s May herself. She, as Home Secretary, was very keen on deportation—she lost multiple court battles over it; and has already stated that she wants net migration in the tens of thousands. The leaders of Europe have made it quite clear that there will be no access to the single market without freedom of movement. So what does May do? On the one hand, she’s not stupid—she knows it is in Britain’s interest to keep its access to the single market. On the other hand, she hates immigration and has strong political pressure to reduce it.

Honestly, I don’t think the future will be pretty.

Parting Words

Well; these are my political musings for the time being. I hope they have been reasonably interesting. And rest assured, also, that I am continuing work on my work-in-progress novel, the Ark. I am halfway through revising part two; I am soon to have completed most of the revision work! Once I’ve done that, I will likely make some more changes following the advice of my beta-readers.

And after that, it’s full steam ahead to write the third and final part—Hope. Then it will be time to look for agents, and go through the slow, difficult but hopefully rewarding process of being published. Wish me luck!

It’s A Time to Say Goodbye...

I suppose I could say that today is a dark day. I suppose I could say I didn’t expect it—though I did. But in truth Brexit was a predictable enough disaster; the best we can do now is control the damage and teach some hard lessons to those who would rather believe fanciful lies.

I shall begin with Scotland.

It’s Time to Leave, Scots

The ‘United’ Kingdom may have chosen to leave by a 2% margin, but Scotland voted 61% the other way. In essence Scotland is now, in the words of Nicola Sturgeon, being dragged out of the EU against its democratic will.

Those of you who have read the Magical Realm over the past couple of months might know what my position used to be on the Independence question; but since most of you probably haven’t, allow me to clarify. Before today, I used to think that Scotland was, ehm, Better Together. It wasn’t that I was particularly against independence; I actually had quite mixed feelings about it.

It was just that—to my mind—the Independence question had a two key problems. Firstly, there was the question of devolution; and secondly, the problem of UK business and EU membership. The latter made independence economically risky, while the former seemed like a more sensible, pragmatic choice.

I was also skeptical of the SNP brigade: I thought their criticisms of Westminster, while not unfounded, were nevertheless exaggerated. I also believed that they promised too much. They promised a united Scotland that would finally be free to tackle its many social and economic problems; but in reality division would continue to exist within Scotland, and problems of such a sort rarely have easy answers.

But today changes everything. It is pointless to ask about business, since there already rumours that Morgan Stanley is planning to move its offices out of London and into Frankfurt and the financial markest are in chaos with recession considered extremely likely by economists. (As one banker, Dominic Rossi, put it: “European stocks are reflecting some economic impact from Brexit but I don’t think [the] eurozone will enter a recession – the UK will have the privilege of that.”)

Nor can one bring out the argument about devolution. If Scotland is to be dragged out of the EU against its will, then devolution is obviously not good enough.

And this time, the SNP has a point. Choosing to leave the UK and rejoin the EU will have far more dramatic consequences than independence would have had last time. This time, Scotland really can choose a better future.

The beautiful irony implicit in Brexit is that it is not a vote to break up the EU; it is a vote to break up the UK.

This Earth, This Realm, This Little England

Yes, I know I’m misquoting the Great Bard. But the point is simple: England is a reasonably wealthy country that has enjoyed a relatively privileged position in Europe until now. It has a good relationship with the Americans. It had access to the common market. It had exceptions inside the EU. It got away with taking only a few thousand refugees.

But today marks the end of privileges. Allow me to put it simply: it is not in Europe’s interest to give the UK a shiny new deal. The EU and national leaders across the continent have been clear that England cannot expect to enjoy club membership without giving anything back.

In fact, it is very much in Europe’s interest to teach England a lesson. A profitable and convenient deal outside the EU would bolster other anti-EU movements across the continent; but recession, unemployment, and the breakup of the nation? Suddenly it no longer sounds so attractive.

Indeed, if I were the sort of bureaucrat that Brexiteers like to pretend make up the EU, I would see Brexit as a potential opportunity. What better way to crush anti-EU sentiment across Europe, than through making an example of England? And what better a way to humiliate England than by giving to Scotland the benefits England so glibly threw away? (And if Scotland decides to join the euro, well; that would be perfect. Scotland can maintain a stable economy in the eurozone while England suffers recession under the pound.)

Of course the consequences of Brexit go beyond this. England will no longer be at the negotiating table of a vast economic and political union; instead it will see itself divided and weakened, the Scots and Irish outside of the union, and its politics increasingly inward-looking and toxic.

Brexit also has consequences in the form of lost rights. Today I had to tell a Y12 student that her plans to study in the Netherlands would have to include the very real possibility of student visas, proof of finance and a quadrupling in tuition fees. Today over a million Britons living across the continent—in Spain, France, Belgium—are left wondering what will become of their pensions and their residency status.

What got lost in the abusive rhetoric against immigrants was that Britons can be immigrants too—immigration is, after all, a two way street.

The Irish Dream

The situation in Northern Ireland is, to say the least, uncertain. With a majority to remain—and Sinn Féin already calling for a united Ireland—things could get very interesting. Of course NI isn’t Scotland and the possibility of leaving is not so clear-cut as it is across the Irish sea.

But if Ireland does become a united republic, what better an irony? Decades of internicine war and sectarian struggle—brought to unity by British arrogance?

And of course, there’s that currency question again. Ireland is in the eurozone. Will another formerly British nation adopt the hated euro?

Corbyn—The Prophet Doomed?

Another interesting piece of news is that two rebel MPs, Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey, have submitted a motion of no confidence. Now—this motion may not get put to the ballot. Senior figures in the party have already called the motion self-indulgent.

Nevertheless, it is a serious possibility. Brexit changes a lot of things, as we can see—and since the vast majority of the PLP is Europhile, Corbyn’s failure to convince Labour voters and the country to back Remain is obviously not good. What’s more, Labour MPs see Corbyn as a reluctant and skeptical defender of the EU—a perception that is not entirely without justification.

In his defence, Corbyn did what he could. It’s not his fault the kippers and the Tory right were obsessed with voting out. The demons Boris and Farage unleashed—fear of immigrants, fear of an imaginary Brussels monster—are difficult to contain.

And let’s face it: Corbyn’s skeptical support of the EU may have done more good than harm. People are often more willing to listen to a man who shares the doubts they share—but nevertheless supports the EU project—than one who is adamantly pro-EU.

That’s the theory, anyway. The problem is really that we don’t know why Labour failed to get our supporters to vote Remain en masse. It can just as easily be argued that Corbyn would have swayed the vote towards Remain if he had been more like Nicola Sturgeon—a bold politician making a positive case for Europe.

My take on this is that we should wait. Wait and see who the Tories elect as leader. Wait and see whether the post-Brexit polls are kind to Jeremy—or not.

As some of you may know, however, my support of Corbyn has been lukewarm rather than jubilant. I like Corbyn: he’s a man of principle who has successfully recognised the problems this country faces and proposed serious plans for how to deal with them (unlike the vapid soundbites of the Blairites).

But politics is a dirty business, and I’m not sure Corbyn has what it takes to be a successful leader. The reality of being a politician is that you have to sometimes be economical with the truth; that you have to tell a convincing story in order to win. If you don’t, others will. And you may not like where those stories lead to...

Hail Our Dear Leader, BJ!

The last of the political fallout to emerge from this debacle is of course Boris Johnson. The man who, but weeks before the referendum campaign, claimed to be for Bremain—and then became a convinced Europhobe. The man whose ambition sees no bounds; the man who wears the mask. A charming fool on the outside. A dangerous and cunning politician underneath.

Will this man as Prime Minister be disastrous for this country? Of course. But, then again, you deserve what you vote for.

What Broke the Camel’s Back?

Among the last question I will be addressing here is perhaps the most important. What swayed the out vote?

Through examination of the polls, Leave’s campaign, and personal experience, I will offer the following:

1. Xenophobia and nationalism. No doubt some will accuse me of being elitist. Honestly, I don’t give a damn. Racism is not okay if the southern states of the America vote for it. Anti-semnitism is not alright even if 40%+ of Germans voted for Hitler. Xenophobia is a dangerous populism with a long history of bloodeshed—particularly in this dear continent of ours.
2. The belief that immigrants ‘take away our jobs,’ crowd up our NHS, and do other terrible things. While not strictly xenophobia, this is still an irrational belief that has resisted all the reasoned argument and evidence thrown against it.
3. The Brusselero. A fictional monster of faceless EU bureaucrats propagated by decades of gutter press sensationalist nonsense .
4. Wishful thinking. Britain outside of the EU will not suddenly become a bastion of democratic socialism; it will find only recession, diplomatic impoverishment, and more fanciful lies peddled by rightwing politicians.
5. And finally, there was the fact that the electorate treated the referendum as a way of saying f-you to the establishment—to Cameron, Osborne, Brussels, and much of the political class. Those who live in places like the North East and the coastal regions—areas of the country left empty by a globalised, post-industrial economics—felt that their low pay, insecurity, unemployment and degrading town centres were... the fault of the European Union. Of course, this is completely false, and they’ve shot themselves in the foot. Loss of EU membership will allow the likes of Boris Johnson and Gove to continue their austerity programme with even greater zeal—aside from there being no more pesky workers’ rights regulations or environmental laws to worry about, they themselves have been boosted politically while the only party capable of doing something about the poverty, unemployment and decaying town centres is now trying to get rid of its leader. And of course declining trade and investment, plus the dangers faced by the financial sector, will only make the poverty worse. The Leaves of small-town England probably don’t realise that London pays for their NHS through tax revenues. A decline in London’s economy will have consequences for them, not just for London. But when the turkeys vote for Christmas, they’re always surprised to find themselves in the oven.

To Conclude

Yesterday, I made a Faustian pact with myself. If this country voted Brexit, I would do two things. Firstly, I would—like Scotland—leave. My parents are already going to move to Strathclyde, where they shall enjoy a more competent leadership under the ever handsome Nicola Sturgeon. As for moi? My offer from Amsterdam looks increasingly attractive...

The second promise I made was that I would read HL Mencken’s Notes on Democracy. As a critic of democracy, Mencken made many a wise observation. This is perhaps his wisest:

‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.’