June 30 2016--Little England

Until recently I never thought much about what the Great in Great Britain meant.

Of course I knew about the British Empire where the sun never sets, though by the time I was a young adult coming into political consciousness, most British colonies had broken away and were linked mainly though trade agreements, immigration policy, and as members of the British Commonwealth. With emphases on common and wealth.

Now, after the Brexit vote I am understanding that what is likely to remain of Great Britain or the United Kingdom will no longer be so united or so great.

Scotland and Northern Ireland, the major components with Wales of what is united and left of that kingdom, will figure out ways to secede and on their own, either, as in the case of Northern Ireland, unite with the rest of Ireland, while Scotland is likey to form an independent nation of its own and in both cases will, one way or another, affiliate with the E.U.

What remains will coalesce into just England, which wags and British haters (there are many on the continent, which compounds the problems) are now referring to gleefully as Little England.

From Great Britain to Little England. What a comeuppance. Or comedownance.

The European Union in its inception was supposed to accomplish a number of things.

First--and this attracted most of the ultimate E.U. countries to affiliate and for many of these adopt the euro as the common currency--first, there were the obvious economic advantages. To create the ultimate free trade zone and in that way, though far from forming a true United States of Europe, forge the world's largest trading block and collective economy.

Then there were the political reasons to build an E.U. Many of the future members had made war with each other at various times over many centuries. Most dramatically the First World War (which up to that time produced the most military and civil casualties in history) and then the even bloodier Second World War which were fueled by collapsed economies and rampant, virulent, and rivalrous nationalisms.

The thought was that if these historic enemies could become entangled for mutual advantage in an integrated economy and open their borders to commerce and people, making money together (not love) would overcome their seemingly genetic impulse to make war.

With many caveats, what was envisioned by E.U. founders such as Jean Monnet, up to now has worked. There are many spats to be sure, especially in recent years, as prominent examples, about the admission to the E.U. of Islamic Turkey and immigration and refugee policy (not unrelated), there have been no wars (trade or military) and relative prosperity, especially for the countries with the largest economies--Germany, England, and France.

But enmities remain and have been largely papered over. Xenophobic nationalistic inclinations persist and historic rivalries lurk just below the surface.

The Brits voted to leave the E.U. just a week ago and already German and French leaders, among others, are pushing the UK to leave the E.U. by the end of next week, not next year or two or three years hence.

I am exaggerating to make the point that not only do Germany and the current French leadership want to set an example of harsh and unyielding treatment of Britain to discourage others from thinking about following suit (including France where an emboldened Marine Le Pen is already calling for France to exit--Frexit), but also because of a still vibrant dislike of things British. Especially perceived English arrogance, moral superiority, and--this is important and closer to home--having served since at least the early 20th century as the United States' poodle.

For us that poodle has been important. With much of Europe suspicious of America's agenda, the UK has served as an essential bridge for us to the continent. Our "special relationship" with Britain has included not just an almost always willing partnership in global adventures and interventions (including support for the Vietnam and Iraq wars) but also as an eager partner in intelligence gathering and fiscal and cultural policy.

If as many say (fear as well as look forward to) Great Britain's fall in status and stature, the prospect of Little England, is both real and confounding. For us, there will be estrangement and thus less influence as Russia and others grow restive and flex their muscles.

Which means that over time we may be also heading to become Little America.

Jean Monnet

September 26, 2014--Best of Behind: Et Tu, U2?

This piece of hypocrisy hassling is from October 17, 2006--

For years I’ve stifled my aversion to Bono’s sunglass fetish, thinking that, though I hate all those pretentious shades, if they contribute to his image and fame and he in turn uses that fame to promote good causes such as AIDS research and treatment, so be it. If he can live with them, then so can I. Anyone who could get George Bush’s Treasury Secretary, whichever one it was, to spend two weeks in Africa experiencing poverty first hand can’t be all that bad.

Well, maybe.

Did you catch the report in today’s International Herald Tribune about U2 moving its music publishing business from Ireland to the Netherlands?  Sounds benign enough since both countries are a part of the borderless European Union.

But when we learn they did this to avoid Irish taxes, which for royalty income is twice that of Holland’s, their decision deserves a closer look. Especially since Bono and other members of the band have been excoriating the Prime Minister of Ireland for spending only 0.5 percent of the country’s budget on foreign aid.

Where does Bono think the money to do that would come from? From taxes don’t you think? And with U2, which earns about $110 million a year, avoiding Irish taxes that of course means less is available for the beleaguered Irish government to contribute to African aid.

Bono refused to comment about their tax moves and so there was only U2’s guitarist The Edge available to speak for them. He said, “Of course we’re trying to be tax-efficient. Who doesn’t want to be tax-efficient?” Maybe those folks who would like to see more of their taxes directed to the alleviation of poverty.

Hypocrisy is not one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Perhaps it’s too modern a concept to have been included when the list was originally composed. In those days Lust and Greed and Envy better suited the times. I, though, vote to modernize it by adding Hypocrisy. If you are a purist and want to keep the sins to seven. I’m sure Ingmar Bergman, for example, doesn’t want to change the title of his remarkable film to The Eight Deadly Sins. I suggest dropping Gluttony—leave it to McDonald’s and others to deal with that one. 

But we need to elevate Hypocrisy. It’s too important not to be considered deadly.

Bono's net worth, if you're interested, is estimated to be $600 million.

March 17, 2014--Barack O'Bama

So he didn't get the Obamacare rollout right. It is, after all, a complicated program and bugs should have been expected. No excuses though, it was a mess and shouldn't have been.

So he drew red lines in Syria and then backed away from them when Syria crossed them. No excuses, though it was and is a mess and shouldn't have been.

So he didn't get his political machine into action well or fast enough to help Democrats who are terrified that they will be defeated in November because of their support for his policies. That machine did get Obama elected and then reelected and it is either indifference or incompetence that this current lack of mobilization is true. No excuses, even though it is a difficult thing to pull off. But it really shouldn't have been.

So his N.S.A. was caught spying on foe and friend alike, so much so that Angela Merkel won't talk to him any more. It's a tough and dangerous world out there and perhaps much of this surveillance was necessary. No excuses though, Angela Merkel is not dangerous and spying on her shouldn't have happened.

So he tried to "reset" relations with Russia but that didn't work. Vladimir Putin and many of his supporters and advisers actually want to restart the Cold War. No excuses though--presidents get the big bucks to get these kinds of things right.

I could go on.

But there's a really simple one that's been screwed up that isn't tough or dangerous or even complicated--appointing an ambassador to Ireland.

We have not had one for about 18 months and it's not because the Senate is refusing to confirm the person Obama nominated. It's because Obama, who has Irish ancestors and likes his Guinness, has failed to act.

It's not because there aren't any who the Senate would confirm. It's because Obama, amazing as it may seem, hasn't gotten around to nominating someone. Federal judges I get. Directors of the CIA I get. Surgeon Generals who want to restrict guns I get. Assistant Attorney Generals who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion, in this crazy and perverted world, I get.

But an ambassador to Ireland? Aren't there any Kennedys around he could name? Like Caroline who is our ambassador to Japan?

There are hardly any controversial subjects that have to be skirted around. Incredibly, considering centuries of violent history, in Ireland now there is relative calm and peace between religious and nationalistic factions. So anglophiles and IRA supporters won't be throwing verbal bombs at each other.

But there is one tricky issue that would lead to another tricky issue if it were aired in public, as it very much might be during confirmation hearings--illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants, you may say. What do illegal Mexicans have to do with Ireland?

Quite a lot. It seems there are at least 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants living in the shadows in America and it might be awkward to bring this to public attention. It would mess up all the posturing and demagoguing underway about undocumented Mexicans.

In the meantime, many in Ireland are feeling quite dissed. As well they might.

Erin go bragh indeed.