patten106_GettyImages_blackgreybigbensadstatue

Is Britain Becoming a Failed State?

Aug 20, 2019 Chris Patten

Failed states used to be largely the preserve of the developing world, where the institutions of democracy do not have deep roots. But given the extent to which the Brexit campaign has undermined Britain's institutions through lies, it is reasonable to worry that the country will soon come to resemble a tinpot dictatorship.

LONDON – What is a failed state? Not so long ago, when I was Britain’s Overseas Development Minister, and later European Commissioner for External Affairs, I would probably have tried to answer the question by pointing to specific examples, including several countries in Latin America and Africa.

I would have highlighted tribal conflicts, military coups, economic failure, extremes of poverty, and high mortality rates. I might have referred to the failure of more prosperous societies to ensure that globalization helped everyone and did not leave some communities trapped in deprivation. In addition, I would certainly have mentioned systems of government that had ceased to do what they were intended to do, and certainly what outside well-wishers hoped and assumed they would do.

By these latter criteria, one no longer needs to travel to Latin America or Africa to discover failure. Indeed, many of us in Britain worry that failure is increasingly evident within our own borders – which are soon to be clogged after Brexit – and particularly in the way the country is governed.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

The Brexit Hour Has Come
NIklas Hallen/AFP/Getty Images

The Brexit Hour Has Come

Chris Patten says the UK desperately needs principled and courageous leadership – and within the next two weeks.

4
Boris’s Turn The Big Picture
Toby Melville - WPA Pool/Getty Images

Boris’s Turn

The “Britain Trump” is how the real one ineloquently described Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom’s new prime minister. If the label fits, the country could be poised precariously between disaster and catastrophe.

0

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 56 in all 56 Comments on this article

Adrian Bursill Sep 16, 2019

When you mention what Britain is doing to Northern Ireland, you may as well have compared it to Britain giving Hong Kong back to China. Although Britain probably should never have been there in the first place either.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Desmond Johnson Sep 1, 2019

"comment has been deleted"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 28, 2019

Chris Patten fears the United Kingdom under Boris Johnson may soon become a failed state. The decision to prorogue Parliament is highly controversial, amounting to a coup d’état by an unelected prime minister. As a parliamentary democracy, the suspension would stop members of Parliament (MPs) playing a democratic role in the ongoing Brexit process. This latest manoeuvre is an act of contempt by an unaccountable political elite, which makes up of Conservatives who espouse xenophobia and English nationalism.
The author says, “failed states used to be largely the preserve of the developing world, where the institutions of democracy do not have deep roots.” Brexit, according to Leavers, was about restoring the sovereignty of the House of Commons and taking back control of their laws. That institution is now to be shut down for five weeks ahead of Brexit. MPs will resume work on September 3, go home for a recess, returning on October 14, two-and-a-half weeks before the UK leaves the EU.
Johnson is cutting short the parliamentary session at a critical time, disabling any legislative process. With little time left, MPs would find it difficult to have a say over the greatest upheaval since World War II. Many seek to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, and they believe Johnson's motive was to bypass a sovereign Parliament that opposes his policy on Brexit. He vows to take the UK out of the EU by October 31, even without a deal, for which he has no democratic mandate.
MPs have reacted with fury, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, calling the suspension a "constitutional outrage" designed to prevent MPs from debating Brexit. However, if MPs pass a vote of no-confidence before September 10, there could be a general election in October. As one of the key figures in the Brexit campaign Johnson is known for endless capacity for mendacity, undermining Britain's institutions through lies. Hence, “it is reasonable to worry that the country will soon come to resemble a tinpot dictatorship.”
A number of high profile figures, including former Prime Minister John Major, have threatened to go to the courts to stop Johnson’s ruthlessness, and a legal challenge led by the pro-EU SNP is already working its way through the Scottish courts. Suspending Parliament normally happens between the end of one session and the beginning of the next. However, the circumstances are unusual, due to Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.
A legal challenge would be difficult, since the government is not breaking any law. It is just using parliamentary procedure, as Johnson claims, to introduce new legislation on education, crime and healthcare and that it is normal for parliament not to sit in the lead up to the Queen's speech. The MPs have no choice but either going along with the suspension, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit, or triggering an election with a vote of no confidence in the government.
To prorogue is to “suspend parliamentary democracy”, and that “goes against everything that those men who waded on to those beaches fought and died for”. These dramatic words were uttered by Matt Hancock, now in Johnson’s cabinet – a supine careerist devoid of principle.
Hancock will be delighted to see rebel MPs from across the political spectrum gearing up for a historic parliamentary clash next week. Conservative and opposition MPs have taken part in a series of hastily convened conference calls in a last-ditch effort to prevent a no-deal outcome, forcing Johnson to seek an extension of Article 50 if no deal is reached. British voters have taken to the streets across the country. A petition calling on the government not to prorogue parliament has already been signed by more than 1 million people on day one.
What is not helpful is that Trump waded into the row on Wednesday, fresh from showering praise on Johnson at the G7 summit in Biarritz over the weekend. He claimed it would be “very hard” for Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn to win a no-confidence vote, because Johnson was “exactly what the UK has been looking for”.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Redmarkoz Doesnotcare Aug 28, 2019

How can countries like the UK or Australia for example having some time ago not only willingly presented their metaphorical balls to the US in accepting their subservience to this day remain shamelessly unapologetic in embracing their sycophantic status to this day slavishly serving as unquestioning US vassal states ever prepared to commit their resources and lives regardless of questionable legality or ethical concern in most part to support the illusion of international unity in times of conflict holding their masters interests in higher regard then their own countries even hope to scrape together the audacity and guile to claim that they still function as independent actors internationally.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Benington Aug 27, 2019

Quite bizarre article. I understand Mr Patten is an enthusiast for the EU and that is an honourable position. However I find the personal attack on Mr Johnson emotional rather than considered.
Mr Patten should look to the demographic of the referendum vote. Some 60% of parents voted Leave. These normally small ‘c’ voters of every shade, have not voted for a social and economic transformation of this measure since Atlee. The question for Mr Patten is to explain why this demographic, after 50 years of membership, are of the view that the change they seek in their and their children’s prospects requires Britain leaving the EU.
It is not enough to present this demographic as ill informed or groomed by fanatics. They have made their voting decision based on life experience.
- Desmond Johnson Sep 1, 2019
  
  "comment has been deleted"
  - Andrew Benington Sep 9, 2019
    
    It was a UK wide referendum so the result covers the whole of Britain. The democratic contract is abiding by the result whether one voted for it or not.
    Unlike other EU states Britain has had an independence referendum for Scotland which if the Scots had voted for, the British would facilitated rather than adopting the EU’s expropriation of land strategy.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hong Koh Aug 26, 2019

Will England still keep the seat of the UK on the Security Council if Scotland, Ireland, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark( haha) and Wales secede from the Union? Which Royal will control the trident missiles? King Boris or King Charles?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Digby Thomas Aug 26, 2019

The dichotomy established between Burke and Rousseau is both perceptive in general terms and apt for our times. It is a present day irony that so called “conservatives” nowadays are much more drawn to radical, indeed revolutionary, Roussean utopian ideologies held with almost religious belief against clear negative evidence as to their effectiveness, than they are to Burke’s principals of precautionary pragmatism which are the intellectual bedrock of real conservatism - whether liberal or socio-democratic in inflection.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Martin Pritchard Aug 26, 2019

Referring to Corbyn as "far left" has destroyed any credibility this article may have had, although of course as you worked so hard on the great British sell-off under Thatcher's watch, anyone to the left of Nick Clegg would be "far left" to you.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Aug 26, 2019

The less convenient truth may be that the Cold War, Nato has brought peace to Europe and that the EU has then contributed to the peaceful development. Also, the will in Paris and Bonn, and the preparedness in Brussels, The Hague and Luxembourg to join and to finally overcome the continental animosities after two devastating wars in 45 years was a determining factor. De Gaulle thought of " L'Europe des Patries " which was insufficiently defined since there was the even less defined and much less realistic ghost of the USE. Out of this the fundamental conflict in the structural and institutional organisation arouse. Since Maastricht we have been on the wrong track. Since then we have been digging ourselves one deep whole after the other and it has become highly questionable if and when we can return to a promising track leading to a EU-27 Confederation that can function.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Wu Aug 25, 2019

I am not saying such activities were the source of all the wealth in Britain, it was a vast amount of wealth nevertheless. Otherwise, why would they continue to engage in such repugnant activities for such a long time ? And as for the Industrial Revolution, yes it did result in mechanisation and mass production. But more significantly, it enabled Britain to build a military industrial complex before any other nation, and with its superior navy, Britain was able to expand its empire. As a result, the natural resources it appropriated from its colonies, as well as the cheap or free labour in extracting (minerals, oil) or cultivating (cotton, sugar, rubber) these raw materials ensured a steady supply for British industry.
And as for references, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "By 1833, the number of chests of opium trafficked into China soared to 30,000.[9] According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the East India Company sent the opium to their warehouses in the free trade region of Canton (Guangzhou), from where Chinese smugglers would take the opium farther into China.[11] The British Empire sponsored opium traffic resulted in 10–12 million Chinese addicts and devastated especially the large coastal Chinese cities.[9] "
And from the book Imperial Twilight, a quote regarding a report from a Chinese official called Bao Shichen:" By his own statistics (which were sketchy and almost absurdly impressionistic), he estimated that in 1820 there were a total of almost three million regular opium users in China, whom he believed collectively spent more than one hundred million taels of silver per year on their habit, a sum greater than the government's entire yearly tax revenue".
This income for the East India Company might have been dwarfed by the entire GDP of the British empire of the time, but it was still important enough for Britain to send warships to fight two wars with China over. The terms of the defeat in the second opium war forced China to legalise opium, which opened the floodgates and drug addiction became rampant. But this ironically enabled local Chinese opium growers to proliferate, and thus devastating the British opium trade. It also led to Hong Kong being ceded to Britain, a territory whose last British governor was Lord Patten.
- John Brian Shannon Aug 25, 2019
  
  Hi Adrian,
  
  I will reply to you paragraph-by-paragraph.
  
  1. Great Britain did do all that and it acted no worse (and mostly better) than every other major power in the world at the time. GB did not 'appropriate' from countries, it traded, and all major transactions were duly recorded and are still available to historians today. Not that such trading (by any side) would pass muster in today's world, I'll give you that.
  
  2. Your second paragraph is the stuff of fantasy. What really happened is that GB's Commodores, Admirals, and Navy Captains saw the level of drug addiction in China, and realizing that it was having a negative impact on their trade and those trading partners, the Royal Navy seized all opium, every week, throughout that era, and burnt the poppy fields -- to prevent Chinese labourers and Chinese farm owners from killing themselves with the drug. THAT is what the so-called 'Opium Wars' were all about. Chinese labourers and farmers were dying before they could complete the contracts for goods that they had signed with British traders. And that's bad for business, bad for the Chinese economy, and bad for the traders who had travelled thousands of miles to trade with the Chinese, and bad for Navy Captain careers. The Royal Navy saved Chinese people who were important in the trading relationship from dying (by the drug of their own choice) by incarcerating them 'cold turkey' until they overcame their addiction, then they were released to resume their life.
  
  I agree that it sounds high-handed from our more enlightened 21st-century, but many Chinese lives and a trading relationship were saved because the RN seized 'all the opium' and rationed it out at the lowest possible level to preserve Chinese lives.
  
  3. Before the British ever saw China there were 3-million opium addicts. While the British were there, there were 3-million opium addicts. After GB left China, there were 3-million opium addicts.
  
  4. GB sent warships to China to protect British trading ships that Chinese drug dealers (warlords) attacked and burned to the waterline because they had seized all the warlord's opium. The reason British traders seized the opium was because the mutually-agreed-upon trade terms weren't being kept -- money had been paid, and goods not received -- because addicts kept dying and warlords were taking over the farms/ranches/silk production facilities and then not delivering the goods.
  
  Which, back in the day, was how trading relationships worked. If you were paid and didn't deliver, they sent troops to enforce delivery.
  
  In the case of China's trade with GB, warlords and drug dealers got in the way, inflicting severe casualties on British traders, therefore, those British traders who managed to stay alive through those attacks, asked the Royal Navy to enforce the terms of the contracts. And tacit approval was given by the Chinese government to have the RN enforce order in and around Hong Kong, as the Chinese government wasn't equipped to do so in that part of China.
  
  China's warlords later forced the Chinese government to legalize opium to, a) prevent the RN from attacking them (as the warlords were losing almost every battle, although not at first) and, b) to make other land available to them, further inland, so they could enjoy more security and have more access to more customers for their evil drug.
  
  Conflating all this to, "It also led to Hong Kong being ceded to Britain, a territory whose last British governor was Lord Patten," is the largest leap of logic ever seen.
  
  Hong Kong was a vestige of the British Empire, and every other jurisdiction of the British Empire was consequently ceded by Great Britain to local governance at a time appropriate for both parties.
  
  GB ceding Hong Kong to local governance was the LAST such event, not the first return of territory.
  
  As of now, all former colonies of GB (including the former colony of America) are now under local governance. But that only became possible when those jurisdictions became ready to accept the reins of power.
  
  Hong Kong, as with other GB colonies, was nothing more than a trading outpost for the British Empire and as GB has had no real interest in Hong Kong since trade between the two powers dwindled in the 20th-century, there was no reason to keep a trading outpost there. Therefore, when it became clear that China was able to govern Hong Kong, it was returned to China by the British crown.
  
  A final note on this: The relationship between the British crown and the government of China was very cordial and complementary before, during, and after the time of conflict. What was notable was that local Chinese warlords attacked British trading ships and killed many of their crews, and attacked and killed many Chinese who were trading with the British. It is also true that the Chinese government was afraid of the warlords (for good reason) and so were the Royal Navy.
  
  For that reason, China's government authorized GB to conduct what later became known as the 'Opium Wars' under very strict rules of engagement, to the detriment, it was hoped by both sides, of the local warlords.
  
  History shows us that the warlords inflicted heavy losses on all sides.
  
  The lesson to be learned from this, IMHO, is that if anything, the Chinese government and the British crown should've worked even closer together to deal with the unbelievably powerful warlords who worked the area at the time.
  
  IMHO, 10-times more effort should've been expended to deal with the warlords, and the British crown should've invited at least one important Chinese government official onto each and every RN ship in or near China, to advise and authorize the RN captain on his best course of action in any given situation.
  
  As for the present Hong Kong protesters, the movement appears to be foreign-led, designed to embarrass the Chinese government, and in the worst case, to prevent Hong Kong's full integration with the rest of China. Which should be the obvious result of the GB crown returning Hong Kong to the government of China.
  
  Best regards, JBS
  - Michael James Aug 26, 2019
    
    Seriously? This rant of yours is the carefully constructed fantasy of imperialists.
    Britain "traded" but with the barrel of a (naval) gun, on its terms. Take India which produced a lot of the world's cotton. The British systematically destroyed the native Indian cotton weaving and processing so as to give a monopoly to itself in the homeland. This is how Manchester and Liverpool became the biggest ports and richest manufacturing centres in the world. Destruction of native Indian industry meant the Brits now dominated export trade in manufactured cotton goods.
    As to your absurd China story, again it was the disinclination of the Chinese to want or buy (or trade) any British goods that created the British problem in how to trade for the things it wanted. It couldn't just run up an endless trade imbalance (ie. payments in silver & gold) so in a kind of early version of Trumpism, it devised a fiendish strategy. It destroyed the local poppy/opium industry by force and replaced it with British imported opium produced in .... India!
    
    Cut to your last para (I gave up reading your rant) and again I just see fantasy and lies. The HK protests are so obviously native home-grown, as can be judged by the rich west being very tentative in their support. The Brits especially since they fantasize about a post-Brexit trade deal with China. Trump shrugs and says it is up to HK to sort its troubles out, more or less giving carte blanche to Xi to exert his authoritarianism. The Brits are responsible for the treaty with China over HK and its independence for 50 years, so they continue to carry responsibility for insisting that China honour that agreement. No one, least of all the Brits, can force China to do so, but they can be shamed. It is a treaty they signed into law and should not be allowed to swat it aside like Xi wants, and his traitorous proxies in HK are willing to do. The protestors would not cause this agitation if the existing Basic Law was adhered to.
    But you, like Boris and his extremist supporters, also believe they can just swat parliamentary democracy aside in Brexit issues. Like Carrie Lam (CE of HK) Boris remains unelected except by a tiny number of his own party-insiders. He is trying to do what Lam as proxy for Xi is doing to HK: totally subvert real democracy. One wonders, if he forces undemocratic hard-Brexit (which no one voted for), whether the people might take their cue from the brave HK protesters.
    - John Brian Shannon Aug 26, 2019
      
      Hi Michael,
      
      I refer you to my paragraph #1 above, where I said: "Great Britain did do all that and it acted no worse (and mostly better) than every other major power in the world at the time. [...] Not that such trading (by any side) would pass muster in today's world, I'll give you that."
      
      Doesn't that itself cover your concerns? It should.
      
      As to your 2nd-point; We were talking about China in the 1839-1860 timeframe in this post -- not India in the 1660-1721 timeframe.
      
      Again, I refer you to my paragraph #1 argument in regards to China 1839-1860 and India 1660-1721 timeframes.
      
      Great Britain was hundreds of times less brutal than its contemporaries, especially the Dutch East India Company which had its own massive army and navy, and even Royal Navy ships steered clear of them (by hundreds of miles whenever possible!)
      
      At least in the GB example were there indigenous survivors to tell the tale, if you take my meaning.
      
      Your 3rd-paragraph, "As to your absurd China story..." etc., is completely revisionist.
      
      British (trade and diplomatic) ships kept getting burnt to the waterline by Chinese warlords, so the Royal Navy was sent in to deal with the warlords. In so doing, they confiscated all the opium and when they didn't immediately burn it, the opium was stolen back by the warlords, inflicting serious loss of life among RN crews.
      
      With no opium, the workers wouldn't work, so opium from India was shipped in and instead of the workers being 'owned' by local warlords, China's (drug addicted) workers worked for the people who were paying good money for their silk and other goods. And in return, got the minimum dose of opium as part of their pay packet.
      
      It should be noted that opium/heroin wasn't illegal in China at the time. However, its use was discouraged by the Chinese authorities.
      
      Your 4th-paragraph, "Cut to your last para..." etc., if you want to believe that the HK protests are homegrown, that is your business. But I think you're naive.
      
      It's true though, that the UK has a fiduciary duty to see the terms of the Handover agreement + 50-years of capitialist control of Hong Kong upheld, and it is true that the UK has little power to compel China to do so other than by moral suasion.
      
      My own view is that Carrie Lam tried to get away with a little too much, too soon, and got caught (by the Americans!) judging by the distinctly American accents of many of the "protesters" -- along with many Canadian accents too.
      
      But hey, if that's their way of forcing Carrie Lam (and by extension, China's leaders) to abide by the terms of the Handover agreement + 50-year rule, that's their business.
      
      It isn't the way I'd do it.
      
      Your final paragraph, "But you, like Boris and his extremist supporters, also believe they can just swat parliamentary democracy aside in Brexit issues." etc., made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
      
      You see, *The People* voted for Brexit. They won by a margin of +4.1 per cent. Which is a larger margin of victory than many UK General Elections. And there's never any crying after the fact when a political party wins a UK General Election by such a large a margin.
      
      So, I wonder what it is about Remainers that they are still going-on about how unfair it all is... you know... that Democracy thing!
      
      Not only did Brexiteers win the referendum by a healthy margin, every political party in the UK supported Leave in the subsequent UK General Election and ran on "Leave" as part of their party platform. (So then, no matter which party won the 2017 GE, it would've won on a "Leave" platform)
      
      Interestingly, Theresa May (appointed to power by her party in exactly the same way as every UK Conservative Party prime minister has ever been appointed) won the 2017 General Election with a margin of victory of only 2.4 per cent over Labour.
      
      Funny, isn't it, that no one remarks endlessly on that stat!
      
      Yet, the Leave campaign won with a margin of victory of +4.1 per cent!
      
      UK General Elections have been won (and not contested) with smaller margins of victory than Theresa May's 2017 General Election win. And with *no crying* after the fact!
      
      What is it about Remainers and their intolerance of democracy? (Unless the election goes *their way* of course)
      
      "Boris remains unelected except by a tiny number of his own party-insiders."
      
      Er, that's the way Prime Ministers are chosen in the UK.
      Even Labour Party prime ministers are chosen by "a tiny number" of their "own party insiders."
      
      That's the way UK Prime Ministers have been chosen since time immemorial.
      
      Are you not aware of that?
      
      Your last line scares me. Do you really want Britons to rise up and protest against democracy?
      
      You know, the democracy of the 2016 referendum and subsequent democratic General Election 2017 victory by a "Leave" party -- and remember, all UK political parties ran on a platform of "Leave" in that General Election, and the democratic right of a UK political party to appoint a Prime Minister from within their own ranks.
      
      Best regards, JBS
      - Michael James Aug 27, 2019
        
        First, the referendum (or really a plebsicite, non-binding) had a margin of 3.2% (not 4.1%) which means a 1.6% change would have produced the opposite result. The point is that it is seriously deficient and poor democracy to allow such a momentous fundamental political and cultural operational change on the nation based on such a thin "majority". In most jurisdictions (USA, Australia, Canada etc) it requires a majority vote in a majority of states; other jurisidictions require a super-majority (60+%). On either basis the Brexit referendum failed (two of four "states" of the union voted to Remain and Wales today would also vote Remain). Then some places like Australia (and Belgium) have compulsory voting which would have assuredly resulted in a Remain vote; just the intentions of the large number of 18-25 age group would have done that.
        
        All that is without even discussing the outright lies and deceptions of the Leave campaign. The chief liar is now the PM but he has no legitimacy to take the UK down this disastrous route, yet this unelected PM "Boris Johnson would be committing the “gravest abuse of power and attack on UK constitutional principle in living memory” if he shuts down parliament to help force through a no-deal Brexit." In fact it seems his plan is truly machiavellian: to close down parliament to prevent them voting against a "no-deal exit", allow the deadline to expire then hold an election immediately afterwards (because electoral calculations suggest that as a winning combination, at least with the hapless Corbyn as Labour leader). Only an ideologue that hates democracy would support such action. Carrie Lam (who happens to hold UK citizenship unlike 99% of Hong Kongers) and Xi Jinping would approve.
        
        Incidentally, on the night of the referendum when he thought Remain had won, Nigel Farage told the press that it would not stop him demanding further referenda. (Given how slim the margin this also shows why the margin for such a momentous action should be a super-majority, but then this is the country with an unelected House of Lords).
        
        Re HK, what other colonialists may or may not have done is entirely beside the point. The Brits may not compare to the mongol hordes or Japan's East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere but so what? The history of the Opium Wars is not in contention. You just seem to want to justify what the British did. Though it is interesting, in the context of today's opioid epidemics, that the worst drug crises have been caused by official and commercial interests. Not by Columbia's (or the Golden Triangle in Thailand, Laos, Myanmar) drug cartels but by giant pharma companies deliberately setting out to entrap customers on their drugs. Or of course the East Indian Company and Jardine-Matheson.
        
        For the rest, I'll accept the commentary of C.F. If there's any evidence of foreign influence it is in the undermining of popular wishes of Hong Kong, eg. the now London-based HSBC mega-bank who don't want their relationship (ie. their profits) with the PRC disrupted, so they buckle and condemn the protestors. I'll also accept what Patten writes.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Canfor-Dumas Aug 25, 2019

More and more people are waking up to the realisation that Brexit is the result of a deliberate and sustained campaign of dishonesty. #ProjectLie
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Wu Aug 24, 2019

"Britain’s system of government, much praised in the past, is based on parliamentary democracy and the institutions of pluralism that one would associate with an open society." Democracy is basically rule by majority, but this does not imply any moral superiority. It is much trumpeted by Western politicians, whose myopic and self-centred interests prevent them from seeing the misery they sow. Britain was a democracy when they were the pre-eminent world power during the 18th and 19th century, with a vast wealth built upon slavery, narcotics trafficking and military adventures. Yet, democracy legitimised the decision makers of that era, much as democracy today legitimises the behaviour of the Trump Administration. The argument goes like this: The Chinese (or Iranian, or Russian) government is an autocracy, and what they do has no legitimacy. We as Western democratic nations hold the moral high ground, and we can bully, coerce, criticise, and behave in any despicable manner towards these nations with a different philosophy of governance because we are just carrying out the will of the majority.
Lest not forget that Hitler, even though he was not popularly elected, had the tacit approval of the majority of his countrymen during his years of rule.
- John Brian Shannon Aug 24, 2019
  
  Hi Adrian,
  
  I agree with much of what you say here, and have made some of those same arguments myself. (The West thinking that it's morally superior and can therefore dictate to the rest of the world, etc.)
  
  However, your sweeping over-generalization about how Great Britain gained its wealth needs to be addressed.
  
  Britain's wealth did not come by, "a vast wealth built upon slavery, narcotics trafficking and military adventures." Full stop. Because that isn't true.
  
  Rather, the Industrial Revolution created Great Britain's wealth. GB was the first to build a home that used electricity (from a water wheel) to power the lights and heat and, yes, even an intercom system to the water wheel house to the main house).
  
  It was the first country to have an electricity grid -- built 'on-time and on-budget'.
  
  (You can check these things out on Google)
  
  It was the first to use coal-fired power generation (at first, steam for heat, and then steam for electricity)
  
  It held more patents during the Industrial Revolution than all previous patents from other countries put together.
  
  It exported more goods and imported more goods than the rest of Europe combined, which provides jobs at each end of the ship's voyage.
  
  It created modern tourism on steamships, and later, on ocean liners. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
  
  And so much more.
  
  Your assertions that GB's wealth was created by, "a vast wealth built upon slavery, narcotics trafficking and military adventures," is simply untrue. All of those things together didn't account for 1% of GB's growing economy, and if you're going to assert things like that you should cite a reputable source for your accusations.
  
  Best regards, JBS
  - P. Kamath Aug 31, 2019
    
    JBShanon: You say,”...Great Britain was hundreds of times less brutal than its contemporaries, ....” . Pray tell us how😊! Give us two good examples for comparison. Now let me play devil’s advocate here.
    
    In most histories of colonization, colonizer imposed on “the ruled” , degradation, humiliation, economic exploitation, racist behaviour, a second class justice, harsh individual and group punishment, snobbery, stifling of human rights, crass negligence of civic duties and so on.. is there a difference between between harsh caning using leather straps or blows by the police on supposedly an innocent person to talk and “admit”? Is indentured labour better than slavery?
    
    Colonization no matter what skin colour of the perpetrator it comes with is dead wrong.
    Peace
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Keevan Morgan Aug 23, 2019

The biggest Brexit lie of all was the British elite’s holding of a national vote on the issue, losing, and then trying to wriggle and wiggle out of the decision.

Nations don’t get Trumps or Borises except in reaction to elites that—true to the tradition of 18th Century French nobility—get out of their vehicles and look down their noses at those they consider their inferiors.

The British elite, whose position is laid out by the author, is simply blaming Britain’s own Deplorables for that elite’s own lie that it would respect the Brexit vote. Perhaps if the elite had followed the British People’s orders, this article would not have been necessary.
- Michael James Aug 27, 2019
  
  You have a distinctly weird, if self-serving, concept of who the British elite are. Apparently Boris Johnson who went to Eton then Oxford is not part of it? Or Nigel Farage who went to the private Dulwich College school and became a commodity broker following his father who was a stockbroker. What about Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of the most extreme hard-brexiteers and one of the richest men in parliament; his father was deep, blue-blooded pillar of the British elite and so of course Jacob went to Westminster (equal to Eton) before Oxford; he became a hedge-funder and made a few hundred millions which, incidentally, he moved to Ireland (in Euros) after the referendum (every downward movement of the GBP earns him a big profit!).
  
  Chris Patten is a Tory and had an illustrious career (until he lost his seat and was appointed HK governor by Maggie) and of course went to Oxford (but on scholarship, the only mechanism available to someone like him, not Boris or Jacob etc) but he's no born blue-blood. Here is part of his Wiki entry:
  "Patten's father, Frank, a jazz-drummer turned popular-music publisher and his mother Joan sent him to a Catholic primary school, Our Lady of the Visitation, in Greenford, and later to the independent St Benedict's School in Ealing, west London, where he won an Exhibition to read Modern History at Balliol College, Oxford."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Aug 21, 2019

Mr. Cameron may have called someone a career psychopath, but with the historic blunder of the referendum without double quorum and public preparation in a highly complex matter of epochal importance, he proved himself much worse and much more damaging to Britain. I know very little about Mr. Cummings, but I do know that Mr. Cameron was utterly stupid and irresponsible.
- Paul Hayes Aug 25, 2019
  
  Furthermore, as Simon Wren-Lewis points out, "those who think the UK descended into political madness with Brexit are wrong: the madness started with austerity in 2010."*
  
  * https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-economic-and-political-cost-of-uk.html
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Engel Aug 21, 2019

When people write about Brexit the underlying picture is that the UK would be leaving a union which is successful, dynamic and protective of its members, where the future is in the hands of brilliant administrators, responsible to a Parliament overseeing expenditures and policies.

I am maybe a spoilsport, but I don't see the EU like that. It seems to me that the EU has not, ipso facto, been a great success, and there are many reasons to project a increasingly problematic situation in the future, including a catastrophic demography in Germany and Italy (implying a broad based lack of confidence in the future, confirmed by many opinion surveys); an impending systemic banking crisis in Italy at least (of the scale of about an order of magnitude larger than that of Greece), but likely to spread given the poor capital ratios of many banks, particularly German banks; of a bureaucracy clearly not responsible to anyone except itself, where the formal leadership was put in the hands of someone clearly "in his cups" most afternoons, and needing his bodyguards to hold him vertical.

While of course Brexit will not be of itself a panacea, and the opening of the gates to a better world, it will be at least a distancing of the UK from the future troubles of a club some of whose members cannot afford to pay their share of the new roof, and some of whose members do not really want to pay for the partying other members consider their due.
- Jean Van den Eynde Aug 22, 2019
  
  The EU has not been good at blowing it's own horn, and it is a work in progress.
  But the EU has brought peace, more efficiency in business, in communications, less red tape at borders and for trade and travel in general ... In an increasingly globalized world, this brings strength to what would otherwise be a fragmented part of the world. Would the progress in most countries in Central and Eastern Europe have been possible without a strong core of democratic EU countries, where the rule of law prevails ? Focusing on the imperfections of the EU should not take the attention away from the key messages of Chris Patten.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter McLoughlin Aug 21, 2019

One definition of a failed state is: ‘A state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control.’

Historically the fate of Britain is the same as any empire. Empires have three broad phases: they rise, gain power; then they seek to retain that power; when the power is gone, they seek to regain it. More-than-likely the United Kingdom is in this third stage, understandably hankering after lost prestige, a former Golden Age. This phase can also involve ‘a reckless plunge into delusion’. Like the US replaced Great Britain as the world’s major economic, and for a while became sole superpower, American hegemony is now being challenged by China. Such struggles have always led to major wars. It is the same today. What will make world war three inevitable? Delusion.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Deborah Steed Aug 21, 2019

Please stop calling Corbyn a far left politician. The far left are communists; if Corbyn was a communist he would be advocating the forced seizure of property by the working class. He doesn't advocate this because he is a socialist not a communist.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom M Aug 20, 2019

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.
- P. Kamath Aug 28, 2019
  
  Dear editors of PS: I found often that exchange of ideas by the commentators has been very thought provoking as much as the colomns itself. Why delete Tom M’s comment ? You could leave it as is but simply striking the text. Let readers decide. I personally found Tom M’s writing was quite decent so far 😊.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Aug 20, 2019

Hi Chris,

And yet, after all is said and done, a majority of voters in the UK voted for Brexit. Full stop. That is the essence of democracy and anything else is mere commentary.

In Hong Kong, after all is said and done, a seeming majority of voters (but no firm numbers on this because public opinion hasn't been formalized in a referendum win and subsequent general election win on the issue) want Carrie Lam to rescind a law.

So the Brexiteers, with democracy on their side by virtue of a formalized referendum and a subsequent general election win on the issue are called undemocratic -- while protesters in Hong Kong with no referendum win and no subsequent general election win on the issue to back them are called democrats.

I'm glad I read George Orwell's book so that I can understand how these things happen.

Best regards, JBS
- Carl Tornell Aug 21, 2019
  
  No, referendums are not the essence of democracy. The Parliament is. Referendums are a momentary expression of opinion and can only be advisory, which means that the Parliament never can escape responsibility by referring to the outcome of them.
  - John Brian Shannon Aug 23, 2019
    
    Hi Carl,
    
    With respect, I disagree. The UK Parliament in its entirety (The House of Lords + the House of Commons = Parliament) merely reflects the democratic will of The People... at best!
    
    But Parliament is often far off the mark of the will of The People. And it takes so long to get anything done in government that by the time they finally do get it done, it's no longer relevant.
    
    In California and other U.S. states, referenda are NOT advisory, because in such state elections there are a number of referenda upon which to vote, along with voting for the Governor, etc. and those polls ARE BINDING in all cases unless specifically noted on the ballot paper.
    
    Now THAT is pure democracy! And the most exquisite side benefit occurs, in that voters in those jurisdictions tend to be very knowledgeable about the issues and are politically more sophisticated when compared to voters in other jurisdictions. Because they must be.
    
    I don't agree with keeping people stupid and not making them accountable for their vote -- whether it is a referendum vote or political office vote.
    
    Statements like, "Referendums are a momentary expression of opinion and can only be advisory..." are patronizing words, and de facto, such words work to keep people uninvolved, unaccountable, and ill-informed on the issues of the day.
    
    In the UK's case, every General Election should have at least one (legally binding) referendum question, as decided by the government. And the same should apply to other (county and city) elections in the UK. It should be the law, IMHO.
    
    In that way, the UK electorate will be obligated to 'get up to speed' on the issues and not wind up being sheeple victims to government whims.
    
    The one thing that I loved former Prime Minister Theresa May for was her plan to turn the UK into a Meritocracy, as that would have put the UK in the fast lane to success in a globalized world. It sure *isn't* all that now.
    
    I posit that binding referenda would be part of the (meritocracy) solution and not part of the government by 'talking shop' model that's been inherited since Maggie Thatcher ruled the UK.
    
    Best regards, JBS
    - Adrian Wu Aug 24, 2019
      
      So if Modi holds a referendum in the Hindu majority country of India to expel all the muslims, or to relegate them to second class citizenship, and wins, this would be acceptable because it is the will of the majority ? If Trump holds a national referendum on stripping African Americans the right to vote and to reinstitute the Jim Crow laws, and wins, this would be acceptable ?
      We have another term for this type of "democracy". It is called law of the jungle.
      - John Brian Shannon Aug 24, 2019
        
        Hi Adrian,
        
        I don't accept the premise of your questions, because, as I stated in my above comment, referenda should only be binding once the electorate has had the ability to get completely 'up to speed' on a given issue.
        
        Therefore, taking one entire election cycle to 'get up to speed' on the benefits of multiculturalism in India (which are more than the drawbacks of multiculturalism) I doubt that a referendum on the topic would thence be necessary nor even desired by the electorate or the government.
        
        By preventing these very important discussions from occurring (because *some* may think the electorate isn't sophisticated enough to come to the 'right' decision, and therefore, can't be trusted to have a referendum on THAT!) itself prevents the electorate from having those discussions and thereby becoming sophisticated enough to make the best decision!
        
        As I said in my above comment; Keeping 'The People' stupid isn't the answer.
        
        The answer is to have free, full, and fair debate on all topics. That in itself will eventually solve all problems because humans ARE smart enough to come to the right decision if given the opportunity and if *some* people don't work to prevent that from happening.
        
        As long as the truth of all sides of a given matter comes out, 'The People' can be trusted to always make the right decision.
        
        And if, once every 100-years, 'The People' get it wrong -- then it will be 'The People' who pay (in some way) for their mistake. And no doubt, they will correct their error at the next referendum/general election.
        
        See how easy this democracy thing is?
        
        It starts when *some* trust the electorate to do the right thing (once they're given all the salient facts) and democracy fails only when *some* don't allow those conversations to occur -- because deep inside, *some* don't trust the electorate because *some* think the electorate isn't smart enough to handle it.
        
        And, as I said in my above comment, *some* have a very patronizing world view.
        
        The People CAN be trusted -- as long as they have access to all the required information.
        
        Best regards, JBS
        
        Adrian Wu Aug 25, 2019
        
        I don't know about people always making the right decision. If I invest in a company, for example, I want to make sure the board of directors all know what they are doing and have been selected for their ability. I certainly don't want a board of directors with an average IQ of 100 and the majority with only a high school education. Call me elitist if you must, but there are reasons why people are paid big money to make important decisions.
        
        John Brian Shannon Aug 25, 2019
        
        Hi Adrian,
        
        "I don't know about people always making the right decision."
        
        Well, it's *their* decision to make.
        
        And, unlike investors who can invest in a given country from anywhere in the world -- citizens of a country who vote for their politicians will live under the rule of the very people they elect for the next four or five years.
        
        Therefore, it's in their best interests to vote for the best candidate and political platform.
        
        Cruel as it may sound, the people get the politicians they deserve.
        
        If the people 'get it wrong' -- then, maybe next time around, they'll be more careful in who they elect.
        
        And that's a necessary part of learning. If you take away their opportunities for learning, it means the people will make no forward progress in how to choose the best leader(s).
        
        People who have only a cursory understanding of democracy and have never lived as a citizen in a democracy, nor voted in a democracy, tend to undervalue democracy -- although there have been some notable failures as regards democracy.
        
        Hitler, as you pointed out elsewhere on this site, was elected to power in a democracy and went on to kill millions in a world war.
        
        But other political systems have had their failures too.
        
        Stalin was appointed leader of the Soviet Union and went on to kill millions of his own people due to astonishing incompetence (or maybe he starved millions of his own people to death on purpose?) and killed millions more in 'purges' because he imagined they were plotting against him.
        
        Mao Zedong was appointed leader of China and his economic 'reforms' killed 40-million of his own people.
        
        Ismail Enver Pasha seized power in the Ottoman Empire and killed millions in conquest and for spite.
        
        In an exhaustive study on whether democracies kill more people, or communist regimes kill more people, or totalitarian dictatorships unaligned with either democratic or communist mores kill more people, I think democracy would come out of it better than the other two groups.
        
        "Call me elitist if you must, but there are reasons why people are paid big money to make important decisions."
        
        Ahem, you may have missed this, but the list of people who "were paid big money to make important decisions" and then made the *wrong* decision... is larger than the list of people who "were paid big money to make important decisions" and then made the *right* decision.
        
        I wouldn't even give you a half a point for your answer.
        
        In fact, flipping a coin could've accomplished the same (or better) overall result than all the highly-paid decision-makers that ever lived in the world.
        
        For every JFK, Nikita Krushchev, or Steve Jobs (all of whom made the right decision every time it counted) there are four Bernie Madoffs'/Pol Pots'/Emperor Neros'/(Khwarezm Emperor) Ala ad-Din Muhammad IIs'.
        
        All of whom, I imagine, "were paid big money to make important decisions".
        
        It comes down to human nature, IMHO.
        
        Individual humans just *aren't it* when it comes to decision making -- although there have been some exceptional human decision-makers throughout history and there are still a few with us today.
        
        While joint decision making (democracy) isn't perfect, it protects humanity from itself more often than it hurts us, IMHO.
        
        A pleasure chatting with you.
        
        Best regards, JBS
        
        Patricia Feldhoff Aug 26, 2019
        
        But a democracy stripped of a core set of values, and that it is what you put forward as according to you it should be possible to put forward any question in a referendum be it inside the core values of society or not, ruled only by the rule of majority isn't a democracy one should favour! As you cited Hitler: He was able to get elected because the NSDAP was allowed to participate in general elections ALTHOUGH the party's manifesto was clashing with central paragraphs of the then German constitution, the Weimarer Verfassung. By allowing a party fighting the own constitution and allowing this party to lure voters to give them the biggest share of votes but not an absolute majority enabled Hitler to inflict the Third Reich and the mass murder. So your concept of democracy is one of a democracy stripped of core values as for example the human rights and that is a form of dictatorship.
        
        John Brian Shannon Aug 26, 2019
        
        Hi Patricia,
        
        "But a democracy stripped of a core set of values, and that it is what you put forward as according to you it should be possible to put forward any question in a referendum be it inside the core values of society or not, ruled only by the rule of majority isn't a democracy one should favour!"
        
        Says who? You?
        
        Who are you that you should decide for the millions of voters in your country?
        
        A bit elitist, perhaps? Been reading Ayn Rand by any chance?
        
        And what are those "core values" about which you speak?
        
        They seem like *your core values* to me.
        
        Please tell us, your humble serfs, exactly what you mean by that, so that we may be guided by your superior wisdom.
        
        Of course, I speak in jest, if only to convey in print what many must be feeling when reading *your words* (not mine).
        
        It is true that Hitler was elected in a democracy.
        
        But on democracy, I posit that Winston Churchill's words remain true: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
        
        So, my "concept of democracy" as judged by you, on the basis of reading three of my comments in Project Syndicate, is that, "is one of a democracy stripped of core values as for example the human rights and that is a form of dictatorship."
        
        Hahaha, thank you for that laugh!
        
        I doubt that you ever fought as a combat soldier in an active war theatre, risking your life, so that people could enjoy democracy and civil rights.
        
        I have.
        
        Therefore, I win.
        
        Have a wonderful day, Patricia! Enjoy the democracy that I and many others fought for in horrific conditions. It's your right to voice your opinions about anything you wish.
        
        You're welcome. From me, and millions of others who fought for your (and our own) civil rights.
        
        Best regards, JBS
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Deborah Steed Aug 21, 2019
  
  Not the majority of voters in the UK; a slim majority of those who voted. They were lied to...
  - John Brian Shannon Aug 23, 2019
    
    Hi Deborah,
    
    Accusations, but no facts to back them up.
    
    My own opinion is that there were plenty of ill-informed comments coming from both sides (Remain and Leave) and from across the English Channel, so all of it is a wash.
    
    But the facts are this: In 1972 the UK government voted to join the EC cum EEC and within 3-years, the UK government held a public referendum and The People voted to stay in the EEC. Rather enthusiastically, I thought!
    
    And why not? The EC and the EEC were primarily financial and trade treaties which worked wonders for the UK and the continent. An excellent choice.
    
    But in 1998, the UK government voted to cede some amount of political and legal powers to the European Union (in political treaties) which is illegal under the then-current and now-current constitutional framework of the UK.
    
    And then the UK government was too afraid to hold a referendum on EU membership for 23-years... and the first time Britons got a vote on the issue... they voted to leave with a margin of +4%.
    
    Some General Election victories have been won with a smaller margin of victory, and with far less crying after the fact.
    
    So, the wrap-up:
    
    1. The UK joined the EC in 1959 with broad support among voters in a General Election.
    
    2. The UK joined the EEC in 1972 which didn't have broad public support, until The People got to experience life with the EEC arrangement, and then the UK government held a referendum to understand the will of the (by then, well informed) British electorate, and the referendum result was very positive for EEC membership.
    
    3. The UK joined the EU in 1998 (illegally, under the UK constitutional framework) which didn't have broad support, and The People lived under the EU political structure for 23-years before the UK government held a referendum to understand the will of the (by then, well informed) British electorate, and the referendum result was negative for EU membership.
    
    As in any election or referendum, the only votes that count are the ones that were cast.
    
    If your side loses, you don't then get the right to count all the votes of the people who didn't bother to show up and vote, nor do you get the right to decide how those people would've voted.
    
    Best regards, JBS
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Federico Polese Aug 21, 2019
  
  17,410,742 voted for leave, out of 46,500,001 registered.
  The essence of democracy is that those who are elected govern in the interest of all citizen, not just those who voted for them. Otherwise, democracies were corporations.
  The Brexit campaign targeted: poverty, low skills and people lacking opportunities and betrayed them because these people's condition is unlikely to change because of it.
  That said, leaving the EU might have a historical sense for the UK as Europe is a drag for global growth and e potential danger for richer countries a the moment ( Marvyn King, The end of alchemy)
  - John Brian Shannon Aug 23, 2019
    
    Hi Federico,
    
    1. Only the people who bothered to vote, get their votes counted. If the other people didn't bother to vote, that is their business, and neither you, nor I, could say with any degree of accuracy how those no-shows would've voted.
    
    Every single one of them could've been Leave voters, for all you know! And I recognize that all of them could've been Remain voters, for all I know.
    
    But what I do know, is that they didn't care enough to vote.
    
    Therefore, the winning vote was to Leave the EU.
    
    2. You're entitled to your opinion.
    
    But let me ask you this: How can a government know the will of the people, unless the people actually get out there and vote? (in a General Election, a local election, or a referendum) as the government doesn't read minds.
    
    They base their decisions on the results of polls. Not wishes. And not people crying after the fact.
    
    3. Political parties and political campaigns can target anyone they like. Are you saying that people living in "poverty, low skills and people lacking opportunities" don't deserve to have their vote respected? Or are you saying that their vote 'doesn't count as much' as perhaps, your more enlightened vote?
    
    That's not democratic.
    
    4. I agree with your last point. Certainly, the UK has been donating a net 10.1 billion pounds sterling to the EU budget for the past 10-years, for a grand total of 100.95 billion pounds sterling.
    
    Remember, "net" is the amount that you don't get back. It's a net contribution.
    
    As you've rightly said, the EU's share of the global economy has fallen to 11% and will likely settle at 9% by 2026, and that's with the UK contributing a net £100 billion to the EU economy since 2009.
    
    The UK economy is expected to grow, especially as the pound falls = more exports around the world.
    
    Best regards, JBS
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Aug 20, 2019

What a pity that the time , just 8 weeks , is running out. Let us see what happens!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
peyotl59 Aug 20, 2019

This Brexit is fascism of the stupid kind, they wreck without a plan, they remind me of the young boys who wrecked the model trains in the gym.
It is political hooliganism, and it makes me wonder what kind of people willingly make that choice, what has gone wrong in the UK?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robin Trew Aug 20, 2019

Britain may win the race to become the first failed state of the north Atlantic, but I fear it will not be the last.

The advent of the Reader Comment – the utter collapse of all constraint on publishing, even by the unpublishable – is also sweeping away the role of the press, the publishing houses, and even, perhaps, of the universities. Institutions once vigilantly guarded by the fourth estate, and fed by the universities, now look suddenly exposed, destabilised, and very vulnerable. The printing press broke the back of the Church and led to the Reformation. Digital networks are breaking far more. We do not know where they will lead.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Martin Archer Aug 20, 2019

The UK is not a failed state. Its government agreed to a public vote on an issue and its politicians agreed to honour the vote. Some of them then decided to ignore the vote when it did not turn out as they expected. A failed state is Hong Kong because its government was run autocratically without installing democracy until the last moment when it was too late for it to become deeply embeded. It is no surprise that the politician who failed Hong Kong's people is now advocating that the UK politicians should fail the UK's people. Some people are just not up for democracy and need distant bureaucrats (Beijing, Brussels) to tell them what to do.
- Adrian Wu Aug 24, 2019
  
  Britain has never advocated democracy for Hong Kong. Lord Patten, please don't pretend you tried. You knew full well the Chinese would object, and the British could have done it a long time before 1984. And what did they do when the Indians wanted democracy and self-rule ? It was not just tear gas and rubber bullets as I can recall.
  How dare you criticise the response of our government in this crisis, which the colonial Hong Kong government should carry a part of the blame for allowing the tycoons to garner as much power as they did over the local economy and politics.
  And as for democracy, this is only a slogan carried on the lips of the so called pan-democracts to further their ambition. They have not done anything constructive to improve the governance of the territory.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
peter dawson Aug 20, 2019

Of course democracy in the UK is failing, because it is a busted flush. in 1998, the old UK order was replaced with 'devolution', which created 2 classes of UK citizen:

- 'celts' and londoners: over-represented politically, economically and socially and gifted with their own private parliaments with which to ceaselessly push their interests to the front of the queue
- English. Un-represented, disadvantaged and discriminated against.

Devolution is effectively a form of apartheid sneaked under our noses in the name of 'inclusivity' and 'multiculturalism'. Little wonder that those disadvantaged by this grotesque inequality are unhappy with it. No surprises there. What is surprising is the extent to which the establishment (e.g. the very emiritus Patten) are willing to play along with it when it would have been unthinkable in any other context. This lie is ending and the 'chaos' that we see is simply the lie being pulled down and replaced with something that fairly represents everyone in the UK as equals - amazing that the liberal establishment have so completely lost sight of this truth
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Aug 20, 2019

Both the UK and the US are standing at the bitter end, harvesting the bitter fruit, of the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. As we used to say in the socialist Poland, this revolution was a great example of a triumph of ideology over common sense. Both countries, particularly the US, burned up much of their economic advantage in this ideological exercise, turning once proud industrial economies into financial casinos that, in the end, work only for the house, with few occasional winners from the plebs to prove to the public that it can happen to you too (aka the American Dream). The instigators of these revolutions refused to admit that they had a decisive hand in the outcome, escaping into the propaganda of scapegoating, otherwise known as road to fascism. There is an ironic parallel to the waning days of Polish People's Republic here. Faced with a similar dilemma, Polish Communist Party escaped into a propaganda of success, since they ran out of anyone to credibly blame. That maneuver produced a lot of hilarity and a fantastic crop of situational comedy movies. Unfortunately, the propaganda of scapegoating is working a tad batter, releasing increasingly dark forces, harkening back to some very dark past.
The political system has gone rogue in both countries, turning to methods that invariably lead into an abyss. Chaos is now baked into the cake as you do not unleash such forces without consequence. The rest will be history, not necessarily the history of the downfall, as societies do sometimes wake up from their nightmares in time to save themselves. The rough ride is a given, however, and they do need to wake up before it is too late. When the public is finally ready to decisively purge the public liars, you will know that something is beginning to stir.
- Daniel Esmond Aug 21, 2019
  
  Well said. It is symptomatic that these upheavals happened in the two countries (US & UK) that were the most extreme in implementing the neoliberal economic recipes of the Chicago School, Martin Friedman and others. These were the countries that rolled back the state and its responsibilities in the social contract in the most radical manner. So there was a failure on every level of policy, primarily on economic policy as you said. In order to survive, the right now has rolled out a vicious nationalism and xenophobia. Sadly, it is pretty effective.
  - tweekney Sep 5, 2019
    
    Says the man resposnbile for all the horrors in Hong Kong, which we never had to give back. Wy not turn it over to the Americans, that would have cheered them up. Seeing as all the dodgy Island building that's going on there and wild claims of sea and land territory.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/uQQxFAw

Cookies and Privacy

Is Britain Becoming a Failed State?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

The Brexit Hour Has Come

Boris’s Turn

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Is Britain Becoming a Failed State?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification