To The Times
The elephant in the room is that no one really wants Northern Ireland. Ireland can’t afford its engorged public sector costs, while British taxpayers have no option but to feed that expensive fly in the political ointment, and keep a stiff upper lip about it. Ironically, the EU has understood the Good Friday Agreement better than Theresa May and most of the Tory party, not to mention the hard Brexiteers.

The reality is that the EU also doesn’t want Northern Ireland (unless it comes with Ireland), an Ireland to which the EU remains wedded and loyal since 1973. Thus the backstop. Sorry Theresa, it won’t go away. (Alison Hackett, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin)

Years ago I worked as a consultant in Northern Ireland and had the opportunity of talking to several well-informed locals. I remember one person commenting, ”The Republic doesn’t want to inherit the violent people of both faiths, and the British don’t want them either. They have had to effectively buy peace here and are having to subsidise us at considerable taxpayer expense. This place used to be prosperous and contributed a lot to the economy. But shipbuilding has gone, and this economy hasn’t much going for it”. Now, it is only important because the right-wing, Protestant DUP is propping up Prime Minister May in Parliament. What can be done about it? Nothing much. The people of Northern Ireland will be living off the subsidies from Westminster, possibly indefinitely. Blame Cromwell, who started it all by importing Scots radical, Protestant “settlers” into Northern Ireland in the first place.

What has this to do with Epicureanism? The answer is that it illustrates the knots the human race can get into over religion and cultural identity. Epicureanism focuses on getting on together as individual human beings, without priests and confessions and priests telling you what to believe (and then abusing their authority).

All over Britain reception class teachers are faced with children who have not been taught the bssic social skills before they reach first school. Typically, about a third of all kids begin school without being able to speak in full sentences, use the toilet alone, hold, let alone read, a book. In fact, two in every five have not reached an adequate level of development to benefit from school at all. These kids start at a disadvantage and struggle later academically. Their health is worse and they stand a good chance of falling into crime.

It is a truism that every pound spent on a child in the earliest years will be repaid sevenfold. These children will not have another first-ever schoolday, and are being failed through no fault of their own. The ridiculous thing is that the teachers know precisely how to help, but are hindered by incompetent parents.

One vital thing is for parents to talk and to read to their children. They seem to think that it is solely the job of the school to bring up their children – no! Studies suggest that children from low income families have, by the age of three, heard an average of 30 million fewer words than those from higher income families. Talking and reading to children are both activities that are strongly associated with language development and are a vital part of bringing up a child. If there are no books in the house and the parents have their own problems reading to their children, then it is both the kids and the parents who need help. Parenting has a bigger influence on a child’s life chances in the early years. than education, wealth or class. Teachers are taught to teach, and shouldn’t have to show a child how to handle a pen, hang up a coat or observe the conventions of simple conversation.

Britain has a comprehensive pre-school programme, but all too often it’s a case of “warehousing” the kids with inexperienced babysitters. The answer seems to be to train these people better, pay them better, and ensure that all kids start on an even playing field. The trouble is the local authorities are starved of funds and the Tory government either doesn’t care (they’re alright, Jack) or won’t raise the taxes for such an important cause. (inspired by an article by Philp Collins, The Times, August 24,2018)

Forty per cent of people think British culture is undermined by multiculturalism and that migrants do not properly integrate, according to a new survey, conducted by ICM and 60 citizens’ panels, carried out on behalf of the thinktank British Future and the anti-racism group Hope Not Hate over the past two years. The report reflects widespread frustration at the government’s handling of immigration; only 15% of respondents felt ministers have managed it competently and fairly.

More than a quarter of people believe MPs never tell the truth about immigration and half the population wanted to see a reduction in the numbers of low-skilled workers coming into Britain from the EU. “The lack of trust we found in the government to manage immigration is quite shocking,” said Jill Rutter, the director of strategy for British Future. “People want to have their voices heard on the choices we make, and to hold their leaders to account on their promises.”(BBC September 17, 2018)

One could write a similar piece about many Western countries, where people feel overwhelmed by the number of immigrants. The interests of the businesses, who want cheap labour, are opposed to those of the man in the street. Some of the latter are jobless, feel they cannot live on the incomes immigrants receive, and see a way of life changing without their being consulted. The businesses win every time. Of course, many immigrants are temporary, arriving in Britain to make a good wage for a while and then returning home, an ever-moving population. The most important point is that country needs them – nurses, doctors, plumbers, electricians etc for those jobs which are ever vacant and hard to fill. heartfelt thank-you to them!

But, liberal though I am on most things, on multiculturalism I just don’t get it. I like the improvement in British cuisine, and rely on skilled immigrants to keep a roof over our heads. But I admit to being skeptical about the people who go on about multi-culturalism. What really is it and what are the real, hard benefits? Do they outweigh the social upheavals and right-wing politics they have spawned? Is the recreation of a Peshawar street market in a poor part of Manchester that valuable an addition to the country, colourful though it might be? I would like to understand.

Women in the United States are having fewer children and at older ages than at any time in the last 30 years. This applies to all races and for both rural and urban America, including Hispanics. Between 2007 and 2017 the total fertility rate fell by 18% in large metropolitan areas, 16% in smaller metro areas, and 12% in rural areas, The biggest drop in the birthrate has been among teenagers (whose peak in the rate occured in 1991, and has fallen ever since) and people in their 20s. From 2007 to 2017 the birthrate of Hispanic women dropped between 26% – 30%, and is now beneath replacement rate.

If the birthrate age is too high, young people can’t find jobs; if it is too low, the economy contracts and a smaller broup of young people have to support a large retired population.

Germany and Japan have both experienced large drops in population, but have managed their workforces to maintain high productivity. The key is education, which is not valued by many people on the American Right and is starved of money and resources in areas all over the US.
Those visiting the zuS from countries shich take ecucation seriously, are appalled at the ignorance of people about the Constitution and the government system, about science, the environment, and even the writing skills. Something needs to be done urgently, but this takes money, and the country has a massive and growing deficit. The people who are cossetted and spoiled are the super-rich.

So why is the birthrate dropping? One can point to stagnant incomes, job insecurity, sky- high health costs, and lack of affordable housing. These are all factors, but I suspect that one motive for avoiding children is a gloomy, negative view of the future – global climate change, probable huge movements of displaced populations, political instability, warfare, and a breakdown of law and order. I personally wouldn’t have children were I young- for all the above reasons. Can you imagine current governments having the motivation and determination to do something positive about safeguarding the future? Nor can I. Young Americans are just being smart.

A Liberty University-produced film called “The Trump Prophecy,” claims that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 can be attributed to divine intervention, and that Trump is the King Cyrus of our times.

Cyrus the Great was the king of Persia in the second half of the sixth century BCE. He conquered the Babylon and established a huge empire. He allowed the Israelites, who had been exiled there some 50 years earlier, to return to their native land, to govern themselves and to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. For this, the book of Isaiah declares that Cyrus was “messiah”, anointed by God to deliver the Israelites.

For the creators of “The Trump Prophecy,” the comparison with Cyrus has obvious appeal. It emphasizes the global power of the U.S. presidency. It implicitly condemns the previous administration: the exile from God that Trump is now reversing. And it makes Trump out to be the savior of God’s people, permitting them to live and worship as they please.

Although he may be beloved of the Christian right, Trump is no man of God. He is, like Cyrus, a pagan and a “tool of God”. This is often admitted by Trump’s “court evangelicals”. But to evangelicals Trump’s election was God’s plan.

But why would Cyrus do it in the first place? Here is where the equation with Trump becomes most interesting, and potentially revealing. The restoration of peoples to their lands, and the permission for them to self-govern (with Persian imperial oversight), was a broad policy under Cyrus. It was not just the Israelites he treated this way. It is easier to supervise a relatively self-governing group than it is to enforce Persian laws in a foreign and resistant land — but also, and perhaps predominantly, the policy was a propaganda coup. By appropriating local religious beliefs, he cemented his imperial domination and curried favor with the conquered peoples.

This is what happened in Israel as well. The declaration in Isaiah that Cyrus is God’s anointed ruler is not Israelite prophecy; it is Persian propaganda. The biblical writers bought what Cyrus was selling, and elevated him to the level of a David or Solomon. The parallel with Trump and his evangelical prophets is close. Trump too has effectively spoken the language of the religious right, promising them a return to their cherished customs and beliefs. (They’ll be able to say “Merry Christmas” again!)

Like Cyrus, Trump doesn’t care about the actual religious beliefs he is supporting. What he wants is free rein to do as he likes — with the support of those whose local authority he is propping up. He has offered influence, but not real power itself. And they have bought what he is selling. He is quite literally, to be a messiah figure.

It may all seem utterly ridiculous, of course, but there is an important historical lesson here. For though Cyrus restored Israel to self-governance, there would never be another Israelite king. The ceding of power to Cyrus marked the end of Israel’s native form of government. Proclaiming Trump to be a modern-day Cyrus is, implicitly and perhaps even unconsciously, to suggest that our own native form of government may have come to its untimely end. (Joel Baden, professor of Hebrew Bible, Yale Divinity School, published on Religion News Service : https://religionnews.com/2018/10/04/the-trump-prophecy-includes-troubling-parallels-for-american-democracy/).

The support of evangelicals for a man who is a self-adoring huckster and whose every third word is a lie, a man who despises the poor, women and minorities – all this disqualifies them as a Christian sect. They are a political sect, manipulated constantly and expertly. Even evangelicals overseas do not regard them as christians.

A short while ago the hard-line Brexiteers of the European Research Group were expected to finally reveal their detailed plan. The group of some 80 Tory MPs, led by the ubiquitous Jacob Rees-Mogg, was going to publish “a Brexit plan to rival Theresa May’s”.

Some in the Prime Minister’s camp feared that it would be “the final nail in the coffin” for her Chequers proposal. But in the event, the ERG’s plan B never materialised. The group’s fractious MPs were unable to agree on a united vision. Insiders revealed that the blueprint had been shelved over concerns about its “accuracy and eccentricity”: it included some off-the-wall ideas, such as a plan to build a Star Wars-style missile shield to protect Britain from nuclear attack, and an expeditionary force to defend the Falklands. “The truth is that we reconsidered,” said Rees-Mogg.

So instead, the ERG pushed ahead with a series of smaller announcements. First, they confidently asserted that a no-deal Brexit would leave Britain better off. According to a report by the pro-Brexit group Economists for Free Trade, far from unleashing doom, a no-deal would result “in a £1.1 trillion boost to the economy over 15 years” (how, exactly? Ed. They have no idea). Rees-Mogg endorsed the report heartily, which was surprising. “To have any idea where the economy will be in 15 years is erroneous,” he harrumphed when the Treasury forecast in January that a no deal would cut growth by 8% in 15 years. The ERG later released its own plans for solving the sticky Irish border question. The Irish government called the plan “dreamland stuff”.

Rees-Mogg and friends have had ample time to research their proposals. Yet with only a few months to spare, they have come up with a prospectus that is embarrassing. Their plans are studded with basic mistakes: they don’t seem to grasp, for instance, that the EU simply cannot give the UK access to the single market on the basis of a vague promise that our product standards will be equivalent.

It’s clear now that the ERG does “not deserve to be taken seriously”. Hopefully the whiplash from the recent car crash will jolt most of them to their senses “after a summer spent huffing and puffing and threatening to blow Chequers down”. The rebels have had their chance and they’ve fluffed it. Now they can only save face by abandoning their fantasies and accepting that a Chequers-style deal is inevitable. (from The Guardian, The Spectator, The Times & Daily Telegraph).

How do these closns get elected? They help blow up the United Kingdom in a xenophobic fit, but haven’t the intellect to study the problem and come up with grown-up ideas. It makes a farce of democracy. Where did all the grown-ups go? (Hint: not to the United States).

The President of John Hopkins University, Ronald J. Daniels, recently overheard a conversation among students. One opined that he would have liked to have enrolled in an introductory course in philosophy, but that the demands of his major meant that “enlightenment would have to wait”, you “gotta get a job”, and that therefore he would have to sign up for a “practical” course. Such is the pressure of the sceptics of the humanities (“what use is 19th Century French literature?”) that courses in the humanities in the US are dwindling and are known in the trade as “fragile disciplines”.

I was recently talking with a very senior person from the US Treasury. In the course of the conversation he told me that the biggest problem in the Treasury was the lack of people who could write English, communicate with the Press, not to mention internally, and make the jargon of the department comprehensible. He said that good writers with a command of grammar and vocabulary were among the highest earners in this large department.

I read Modern History at University. For “history” you can resd “human motivations, national interest and mass psychology”. I ended up running a company and found history a great foundation for managing employees and customers, the two most important aspects of management. Of course, not everyone will end up managing people, but learning the technical part of a job comes after you have honed your imagination, ethical decision-making, writing skills, discernment, critical thinking, self-reflection, empathy, and tolerance. Not to mention sense of humour, without which all business can be grim.

Actually, recent studies show that those with humanities degrees are thriving in the workplace. They experience low rates of unemployment and high levels of job satisfaction. Throughout an average career the ratio between average median incomes for humanties degree holders and those with business, engineering, health and medical science degrees has been shown to narrow. As if only income matters in a lifetime.

Prospect Magazine, October 2018 edition, runs an article by Jay Elwes entitled “The Brexit Crunch”, and it is very important indeed. A precis of the article follows. Long-ish, but bear with me:

In 2008 the total value of all CDOs (Collateralised Debt Obligations) and Credit Default Swaps, both types of derivatives, was $458 trillion. One might be forgiven for imagining lessons have been learned, pace Warren Buffet, who severely criticized the derivatives business last time. But no. The current value of all derivatives at the moment is now an astonishing $542.4 trillion, and, furthermore, the modern type of derivative is designed not so much to allocate risk but to conceal it.

The last disaster was caused by over-stretched sub-prime house borrowers. This time it is Brexit.

It seems the British government is going to pass a law allowing EU companies to work on derivative trades post- Brexit, but the EU has made no corresponding offer. If no agreement is forthcoming British finance companies will be unable to operate in the EU. The value of the EU derivatives operated by British companies in the EU is about £27 trillion at any one time. If there is no agreement between the UK and the EU, the legal basis of the derivatives will disappear the day Brexit is effective, and the British companies would have to apply for permission to trade with every country in which they operate. It is possible that the European Court of Human Rights would ensure that freedom to enter contracts, and property rights over derivatives, would be maintained. But it would take time to litigate, and the British companies need immediate clarity.

Worse than this threat of disruption is the fact that after 2008 regulators pushed derivates into clearing houses, the biggest of which is LCH (formerly London Clearing House). LCH clears billions of EU trades every day. When Brexit happens LCH and other clearing houses will be regarded by the EU as “third country entities”, and would lose their right to trade in the EU. Banks would have to move their businesses into continental clearing houses, and find someone prepared to buy all the trades they individually have on their books, a tall order. This in turn would create a stampede to sell assets built up over many years, amounting to an estimated £33 trillion.

The European Banking Authority has said in a statement that “firms cannot take for granted that they can continue to operate as at present, nor can they rely on as yet unrealised political agreements”. This matter of derivatives could cause a giant international meltdown and is arguably the least discussed, but most important issue, about Brexit, not, of course, even thought about (or understood?) by Brexiteers.

Were I not of Epicurean persuasion I would add: Heaven help us!