A Flowchart To Determine What Religion You Should Follow

 

Reality check: the Northern Ireland protocol isn’t the problem, Brexit is

The Tories are addicted to conflict with the EU, for fear of taking responsibility for the consequences of liberation

By Rafael Behr

The Guardian, 17 May 2022

The Conservative party was happy with Brexit, but not for long. A deal that was great in 2019 is now not great. What could fix it? What change would bring enduring satisfaction? The answer is obvious to anyone familiar with the patterns of English Euroscepticism – nothing. There is no concession big enough, no deal good enough, just as no single fix can end the cravings of a drug addict. The long-term solution is to get sober.That is not on Liz Truss’s agenda. On Tuesday, the foreign secretary informed parliament of a government plan to assert its own version of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a threat designed to prod the EU into renegotiating the 2019 withdrawal agreement, which was itself the outcome of a renegotiation made necessary because Theresa May had done a deal that Conservative MPs also didn’t like.

One reason continental leaders don’t want to talk about changes amounting to a new treaty is their certain knowledge that the Tories would be dissatisfied again soon enough. Another reason is that a revised deal would involve trusting Boris Johnson, which EU governments have done before and which no one does twice.

Truss’s account of the problem in Northern Ireland elides frustration with border checks across the Irish sea and a wider complaint about the residue of EU jurisdiction in Northern Ireland that Brexit hardliners see as a stain on UK sovereignty. She is egged on by Tory backbenchers who are convinced that the protocol was foisted on Britain; that it amounts to a regulatory land-grab and that its provisions are applied with pernickety spite as punishment by Brussels of an ex-colony that had the temerity to break free.

Believing that version of events requires two psychological traits that come easily to the fervent Eurosceptic. One is a capacity to forget that every problem currently associated with Brexit, including the specific danger in Northern Ireland, was signalled by remainers and dismissed with contempt as scaremongering by leavers. The other is a need to still feel victimised by Brussels even after leaving the EU, since ending that ordeal removes any excuse for Brexit not delivering its promised bounties.

That is the addiction – the sadomasochistic compulsion to be oppressed by foreigners for fear of taking responsibility for the consequences of liberation.

It is true that customs checks in the Irish Sea are a symbolic injury to unionist feeling in Northern Ireland. But it is also true that Johnson knowingly inflicted that injury, denied he had done it, then whipped the grievance up when he should have been hosing it down. A constitutional crisis at Stormont was not prefigured in the letter of the protocol, but it was made likely by the prime minister’s irresponsible and negligent handling of the politics of the protocol from the day he signed it.

Meanwhile, if Tory backbenchers had not found all the resentment they needed in Northern Ireland, they would have gone hunting for reasons to be dissatisfied with Brexit in England instead.

One of Johnson’s complaints about an Irish Sea border, as expressed in an interview earlier this week, was that regulatory checks create “extra barriers to trade and burdens on business.” That generates “a great deal of faff and botheration”, which increases living costs. Those barriers are uniquely upsetting to Northern Ireland unionists on the level of national identity, but the faff and botheration incur costs also at Dover, Grimsby, Felixstowe; any place where goods move between Britain and the EU.

In other words, the prime minister’s economic rationale for wanting to fix the Northern Ireland protocol contains a complaint about conditions that are intrinsic to the Brexit model he chose.

That is yet another reason why no one in Brussels wants to reopen the 2019 deal. The negotiation would founder on first principles. Brussels says that if Britain is no longer automatically applying EU rules, it must prove that its exports comply. The Brexit ultras think that Brussels is only imposing that requirement out of petty vindictiveness and that the very Britishness of British standards should be sufficient guarantee of quality. That has been the impasse in every chilly phone call and deadlocked meeting between the two sides since 2016.

The Tories cannot budge on that point because doing so would involve accepting two indisputable facts about Brexit. First, exiting the single market was bad for UK businesses (and the losses are not made up by free-trade deals with other countries). Second, Britain had the levers to steer EU policy as a member state and surrendered that power when it left.

No minister serving in the current cabinet can admit those truths. Until that changes, UK policy towards the EU will amount to little more than rattling the cage of delusion that Brexit imposes on its believers. Some Eurosceptics find perverse pleasure in captivity, but that is their fetish and not something anyone else needs to indulge.

When policies fail on such a Titanic scale, it is usual to have some debate about a change of direction. That isn’t happening, because the opposition has no alternative destination in mind, or none that it advertises in public.

Keir Starmer is mindful that his support for a second referendum back in the day is still a vulnerability in constituencies where the Tories want to drive Brexit ever deeper as a wedge between Labour and its estranged core voters. One function of Truss’s bill overriding the Northern Ireland protocol is that anyone opposing it can be cast as an unrepentant remainer.

Labour’s absence from the conversation is not only metaphorical. Two opposition seats on the European scrutiny committee, which notionally holds the government to account on EU matters, are effectively vacant because the Labour MPs who sat there have moved on to frontbench jobs, and haven’t been replaced.

Labour strategists take the view that sanity in EU policy only becomes available by winning an election fought on other issues – things voters actually care about – and not by dancing to a drum that Johnson beats to distract from all his other failures. That is probably true. But it means the parameters of Brexit debate are set by marginal differences between maniacs and hardliners over the optimal pace for fleeing reality.

It is a formula for perpetual crisis. The constitutional mess that Johnson has made of Northern Ireland is so far the gravest episode, but unlikely to be the last. The problem isn’t that the protocol cannot be made to work as written, but that it was written to enact a Brexit that doesn’t work.

Related article: Spiralling inflation, crops left in the field and travel chaos: 10 reasons Brexit has been disastrous for Britain

A Message from Premier League Footballer Jake Daniels

This season has been a fantastic one for me on the pitch. I’ve made my first-team debut, scored 30 goals for the youth team, signed my first professional contract and shared success with my team-mates, going on a great run in the FA Youth Cup and lifting the Lancashire FA Pro-Youth Cup. 

But off the pitch I’ve been hiding the real me and who I really am. I’ve known my whole life that I’m gay, and I now feel that I’m ready to come out and be myself.

It’s a step into the unknown being one of the first footballers in this country to reveal my sexuality, but I’ve been inspired by Josh Cavallo, Matt Morton and athletes from other sports, like Tom Daley, to have the courage and determination to drive change.        

In reaching this point, I’ve had some of the best support and advice from my family, my Club, my agent and Stonewall, who have all been incredibly pro-active in putting my interests and welfare first. I have also confided in my team-mates in the youth team here at Blackpool, and they too have embraced the news and supported my decision to open up and tell people.   

I’ve hated lying my whole life and feeling the need to change to fit in. I want to be a role model myself by doing this.

There are people out there in the same space as me that may not feel comfortable revealing their sexuality. I just want to tell them that you don’t have to change who you are, or how you should be, just to fit in.

You being you, and being happy, is what matters most.

Jake Daniels

Yes, Europe is in danger. It always is.

By CAROLINE DE GRUYTER

The New York Times, Tuesday, May 3, 2022

BRUSSELS — In July 2020, along with European officials and experts, I was asked to take part in a policy game. Convened by a German think tank, we were asked to play out what would happen if either Matteo Salvini or Marine Le Pen, the far-right leaders in Italy and France, came to power. We spent a few hours frenziedly debating how the European Union would respond to each occurrence. Of one thing we were sure: It would be a disaster.

Neither scenario, of course, materialized. In Italy, Mario Draghi is prime minister and Mr. Salvini is sliding in the polls. In France, President Emmanuel Macron defeated Ms. Le Pen to win re-election. On the same day, Slovenia’s right-wing prime minister, an admirer of Donald Trump, lost too. It was a good few hours for Europe.

That’s about as long as it lasted. In Brussels and other European capitals, relief turned quickly to angst. The French parliamentary elections in June, in which Mr. Macron could lose his majority and be forced into awkward compromises with the far right or the radical left, are the new worry. Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, after securing re-election in early April, remains a disruptive presence on the scene. And Russia’s war in Ukraine grinds on.

Such anxiety is common in Europe. Many people seem to think that the European Union, which in different forms has provided Europeans with prosperity and peace since the 1950s, is always on the cusp of ruin. The past decade — encompassing a debt crisis, a refugee crisis, Brexit, the rise of the far right and, not least, the pandemic — has set off regular cries about the coming end of the union. And yet, despite everything, it endures. In a world of war and calamity, it needs to pull together even more.

The European Union’s solidity is perhaps its greatest asset. But it can’t rely on institutional stability alone. Europe is a dangerous place again. As a former prime minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, once said, the union used to be surrounded by friends, but now it is surrounded by fire. Some neighbors are actively trying to undermine the union and destroy all that Europe stands for — with the war in Ukraine the latest terrifying example. In the face of such peril, which threatens to return the continent to barbarism, the case for binding together more tightly is all the more compelling.

Fortunately, Europeans have gotten to know one another better in recent times. During the debt crisis a decade ago, people across the continent watched heated debates in Greece’s Parliament. The fate of the country, bound to painful economic reforms, resonated far beyond its borders. Europeans likewise take great interest in Poland and Hungary curbing the independence of their judiciaries and press, and want the rule of law to be respected in member states.

Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine, and China’s growing economic and political coercion, have brought Europeans together even more. They realize they cannot weather these storms alone: Feeling their way of life is on the line, their reflex is to stick together. They may still not be very happy with the European Union — the way it works, the kinds of compromises it relies on — but they are certainly happier in it.

Such common feeling is of a piece with the union’s structure. The European Union has a federal, statelike construction that should be strong enough to defend common European interests in the face of geopolitical adversity. It has an executive (the Commission), a Parliament representing citizens, a senate representing states (the Council), an independent court of justice, a central bank and even a common border guard. This sturdy federal architecture is the bedrock of Europe’s stability.

In practice, however, it’s not like the federal structures in America or Germany. In Brussels, the de facto capital of the union, member states make most of the decisions. When European heads of state and government meet, they do so as national leaders. They are elected to act in the interests not of Europe but of their own nations. Whatever the issue at hand, they sit down, put their national concerns on the table and start bargaining. In the end, each will find some of its demands in the eventual compromise.

The system certainly has its advantages. It more or less guarantees national ownership of European decision-making; every member recognizes its fingerprints on the final agreement. This sense of ownership helps to explain why the union has survived so many crises in recent years: Member states have invested in it, depend on it and, crucially, want it to survive. But the downside to this approach is that by seeking consensus on almost every issue, Europe becomes as strong only as its weakest link. Leaders regularly make half-baked decisions because some countries refuse to go further, with results that do not always meet Europe’s real needs.

Examples are legion. Hungary, for instance, has blocked several foreign policy statements against Russia or China that all other member states agreed on. Poland, for its part, has single-handedly diluted Europe’s climate goals. And before the presidential elections in France, the government there delayed a decision on a European oil embargo against Russia, fearing the resulting rise of energy prices could favor Ms. Le Pen in her campaign against Mr. Macron. Often, Europe is the plaything of member states seeking to promote their own narrow interests. Mr. Macron, however “pro-European,” is no exception.

That’s why elections often cause such headaches. Democracy, to be sure, is Europe’s strength. It is the union’s core value, its beating heart. But democracy is also Europe’s weakness. That’s because the union is not really European: Instead, it involves 27 separate national democracies. If one of them produces a Eurosceptic government, it can endanger the entire European project, which depends on unanimity. The union is effectively held hostage every time elections are held somewhere — hardly a sustainable way to do things.

The French election, Mr. Macron said, was “a referendum on Europe.” The problem with Europe is exactly that: Every election is a referendum about Europe, in every corner of the continent. It would be strange if a state election in Montana or Mississippi risked undoing the Republic or derailing its foreign policy. In Europe, this is normal practice. That’s partly why, despite its success as a global economic powerhouse and a beacon of stability, Europe often lacks confidence and looks vulnerable in the mildest headwind.

Yet this paradox needn’t be permanent. In a world defined by instability, great power competition and rising prices, Europe must look after itself — and it has the means to do so. A phased embargoon Russian oil, likely to be finalized this week, is just a start. In the wake of the war in Ukraine, collective provision of defense and security is also a must, as is an energy union. What’s more, some kind of fiscal union — augmenting the current monetary union — might also be necessary, to coordinate the serious investments needed to shore up Europe’s resilience. Recognizing the need for bolstered unity, a group of European intellectuals last week even called for a United States of Europe.

I’m not sure the union will ever come to that. But it would be nice if at the policy game in Berlin this year, instead of fretting over worst-case scenarios, we could perhaps let ourselves imagine a bolder, stronger European Union. If we could all allow Europe to stand a little more on its own feet, it would make a world of difference.

BITTE LACHEN / PLEASE CRY

Barbara Kruger

Bitte Lachen / Please Cry

29.04.2022 to 28.08.2022 
Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin

The Neue Nationalgalerie presents Barbara Kruger's first institutional solo exhibition in Berlin. The American conceptual artist has developed a site-specific text installation for the Neue Nationalgalerie’s upper-level exhibition hall, making use of the entire space. The work seeks to engage visitors in public discussion about political and social topics.

In an expansive text installation, Barbara Kruger combines her own texts with quotes by three authors ‒ George Orwell, James Baldwin and Walter Benjamin ‒ whose writings each address major political issues: the violence of totalitarian states, the mechanisms behind societal discrimination and the dangers of biased historiography.

Through the stark graphic impact of her texts, reduced to just three colours (black, white and red), Kruger succeeds in introducing her own artistic language into Mies van der Rohe’s massive building. Aside from the topicality of the texts and their subject matter, the invitation extended to Barbara Kruger to develop this work also pays homage to her outstanding artistic contributions, whose feminist and political approaches have strongly influenced the art of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

State and Totalitarianism

At the centre is a sentence borrowed from Orwell’s book 1984: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ‒ forever."

This nightmarish vision of a totalitarian state originated from Orwell, directly following the Second World War. The statement was intended as a reckoning and reflection on the National Socialist dictatorship in Germany. In his novel 1984, Orwell issued a universal and timeless warning to society to question and criticise any form of state violence and control. By citing this well-known quote, Barbara Kruger also recalls the universal dangers that can arise at any time from repressive structures and nations. Given the current war in Europe, this warning about violence brought about by a totalitarian state seems all the more prescient.

Consumerism and Affirmation

The literary quotes are accompanied by short texts written by the artist that have been adopted from social media news. They address visitors directly and refer to the discrepancies between self-perception and self-alienation, for instance, “Please cry” or “Is that all there is?”. In contrast to Mies van der Rohe’s classical and austere architecture, Kruger employs her own distinctive aesthetic while fundamentally questioning the consumer-oriented, uncritical ways of life that characterise many of today’s societies.

The Artist Barbara Kruger

Barbara Kruger (b. 1945) has been known since the 1970s for her large-scale graphic works featuring sharply worded statements or short texts, which she uses to examine and interrogate common social stereotypes from a feminist and consumerism-critical perspective. She addresses how images and ideas are circulated and perceived today.

B2 Advertising Techniques

Different ways to advertise a product:

Avant garde: the suggestion that using this product puts the user ahead of the times, e.g. a toy manufacturer encourages kids to be the first on the block to have a new toy.

Bandwagon: the suggestion that everybody is using the product and that you should too in order to be part of the group, e.g. a credit card company quotes the number of millions of people who use their card.

Facts and figures: statistics and objective factual information is used to prove the superiority of the product, e.g. a car manufacturer quotes the amount of time it takes their car to get from 0 to 100 kph.

Hidden fears: the suggestion that this product will protect the user from some danger, e.g. a laundry detergent manufacturer suggests that you will be embarrassed when strangers see “ring around the collar” of your shirts or blouses.

Magic ingredients: the suggestion that some almost miraculous discovery makes the product exceptionally effective, e.g. a pharmaceutical manufacturer describes a special coating that makes their pain reliever less irritating to the stomach than a competitor’s.

Patriotism: the suggestion that by purchasing this product you show your love for your country, e.g. a company brags about its product being made in Canada and employing Canadian workers.

Plain folks: the suggestion that the product is a practical product of good value for ordinary people, e.g. a cereal manufacturer shows an ordinary family sitting down to breakfast and enjoying their product.

Snob appeal: suggesting that the use of this product makes the customer part of an elite group with a luxurious and glamorous life style, e.g. a coffee manufacturer shows people dressed in formal gowns and tuxedos drinking their brand at an art gallery.

Transfer: words and ideas with positive connotations are used to suggest that the positive qualities should be associated with the product and the user, e.g. a textile manufacturer wanting people to wear their product to stay cool during the summer shows people wearing fashions made from their cloth at a sunny seaside setting where there is a cool breeze.

Testimonial: a famous personality is used to endorse the product, e.g. a famous basketball player recommends a particular brand of trainers.

Wit and humour: customers are attracted to products that divert the audience by giving viewers a reason to laugh or to be entertained by clever use of visuals or language.

Viral marketing: trying to get the customers themselves to advertise the product by telling all their friends about it on the internet.

Follow-up Exercises:

1. Can you think of one example of some of these techniques in real life? Here are three examples: ING Direct uses the bandwagon technique to get new clients. The Alimentos de Andalucía campaign appeals to consumers’ patriotism. Ferrero Rocher is a textbook case of snob appeal.

2. Look at the following ads and describe them with some of these adjectives: amusing, attractive, awful, boring, brilliant, clever, colourful, consciousness-raising, controversial, cool, dull, imaginative, offensive, ridiculous, serious, sexist, shocking, silly, tasteless, thought-provoking, unusual, weird, etc. What do they advertise? What do these advertising campaigns try to make the public aware of?

Heartstopper_series

The story of two British teens, Nick Nelson and Charlie Spring, at an all-boys grammar school. Charlie, a high-strung, openly gay overthinker, and Nick, a cheerful, soft-hearted rugby player, one day are made to sit together in class. Their friendship quickly becomes something more for Charlie, but he initially does not believe he has a chance with Nick. But love works in surprising ways, and Nick is more interested in Charlie than either of them realized. Based on Alice Oseman's bestselling graphic novel series Heartstopper. Eight 25-minute episodes on Netflix. (UK, 2022) You will want to binge-watch it in one sitting. Tenderness is the word. A must-see, feel-good story.