The Daily Telegraph - 22.08.2019

B

rexit is not the storm; it is the

journey through the storm. Our

island may be convulsing from

the slow-drip torture of leaving the

EU, but it is also shuddering through

a global tempest. In particular, across

the world, “big”, which has been the

basic formula for accumulating power

since the industrial revolution, is in

decline. And despite the premonitions

of my most optimistic fellow

Brexiteers, just over the horizon is a

mercurial era of “freefall” rather than

a golden era of free trade.

But here’s the twist: such chaos

throws up phenomenal opportunities

for smaller, dynamic, independent

nations. It could even spark a British

resurgence, which in its own way

captures the wind-whipping self-

confidence and astute ambition of the

gold-rushing, swashbuckling 1840s –

an era one can’t help associating with

the term “global Britain”.

Everywhere the withering winds

of change are blasting holes in “big

power”. As G7 heavyweights travel

to Biarritz this weekend to rake

glumly over the mildewed corpse of

multilateralism, it couldn’t be more

clear that “big diplomacy” is dead. So is

“big military” – which makes it rather

fitting that Iran is top of Saturday’s

agenda. As the world’s heftiest armies

nervously stroke historic scars from

the asymmetric battlefield, the tinpot

state is being allowed to revel with

impunity in piratic mischief-making.

Away from the drama of the

global stage, “big business” is also

quietly spluttering. On Monday

one of the planet’s most powerful

business groups, which includes

Amazon and JP Morgan – firms

tetchy about a possible consumer

boycott over “corporate greed” –

discreetly abandoned the principle

that companies are there to serve

shareholders, which has for decades

defined capitalism. Now corporations

will focus on “improving society”.

The assertion that “big” is on

the ebb may seem strange in a

world of prowling Asian tigers and

shadowy tech behemoths. And if the

Remainer mindset is anything to go

by, the Weberian idea that modern,

civilised power is derived from large

institutions is deeply entrenched.

Such an attitude, originally germed in

the expansive, straight-rulered minds

of Enlightenment thinkers, flourished

in the civil service-swollen age of

imperialism.

Perhaps big was also genuinely

better in more recent decades, giddily

fuelled by mass consumerism and

grimly framed by the world wars. But

as giants such as China and the US

(and various leading multinationals)

buckle under the gravitational pull

of the 21st century – weighed down

by surging populism, middle-class

desires and the dense complexities of

globalism – the rules of the game have

clearly changed.

This throws up a huge chance

for Britain, if it can only tap into its

true energetic and opportunistic

zeitgeist, currently suffocating under

the depressed flab of bourgeois-

branded socialism and metropolitan

McManagerialism. Few countries

have more suitable DNA for rising

to the challenges of the present day

than ours, inherited from miners,

factory owners, rag-and-scavengers,

speculators and buccaneers. Britain is

defined by its stiff upper lip, but it was

built on lock-jawed determination.

First, as “big diplomacy” falters,

we must become a trailblazer for

minilateralism. The focus should

be on security and free trade. Why

not lead on a defence technology

deal with select allies from India to

Israel? Or help broker the pan-African

free trade zone that has proved

elusive for decades, constricting the

growth of British firms across the

fastest-growing continent?

Secondly, as the US comes to

resemble Ouroboros, the mythical

snake that eats its own tail,

bankrupting itself with a vast army

and spending 10,000 times more than

its inferior opponents, Britain must

revolutionise its military. In defiance

End of ‘big’ era is a huge opportunity for Britain

As giants in business and

diplomacy buckle, few

countries have better DNA

for rising to the challenge

sherelle

jacobs

T

he HS2 fast rail link between London,

the Midlands and the North is an

ambitious project for an ambitious

nation. It is the sort of infrastructure

scheme that we have become

increasingly reluctant to embrace.

Not only would it reduce journey times and

increase capacity – it would also help address the

economic imbalance between London and the

South East and the rest of the country.

HS2’s strongest supporters are in the North,

where the impact of this disparity is most keenly

felt. Its greatest detractors, understandably, are

among those people whose homes and villages will

be blighted by the development. Their objections

should not be enough to stop an infrastructure

project of national importance; but this must be

a question of costs and benefits. If the former get

so great that they outweigh the merits then it

must be right to think again, as Grant Shapps, the

Transport Secretary, proposes.

When the project was announced by the

Labour government in 2009, the estimated cost

was £16 billion for the section from London to

Birmingham and a further £14 billion to extend

to Manchester and Leeds.

These were considerable enough sums at the

time, not least as the country was in recession. Yet

by last year the projected bill stood at £56 billion,

and recent industry estimates suggest it could

exceed £100 billion when and if HS2 is completed

many years from now, making it the most

expensive railway per mile in history.

By any measure this is an extraordinary jump

in costs, given that the specifications are little

different from when the line was finally given the

go-ahead in 2011. Furthermore, it is astonishing to

think that some £4 billion has been spent on the

pre-project phase without a single sleeper being

laid. Mr Shapps is right to want to know, on behalf

of the taxpayer, precisely what this is going to cost

and whether it is worth it.

What the Government must avoid is a halfway

house, taking the line from London to Birmingham

only and thereby losing the whole point of

improving the connectivity of the North. Indeed,

it would be better to start the line from the

North to reinforce that rationale. The likelihood

is, however, that 20 years from now the most

important links for the country will be not in

transport but in telecommunications networks.

That is where investment is needed.

HS2’s costs must not

outweigh its merits

A

favourite resource for Tony Knight is

Winnie-the-Pooh. A train announcer at

Wokingham, Mr Knight has time, if services

are late, to recite extracts to commuters on the

windy platform. If the delay is slight, he jocosely

refers to it being late by a “cheeky three minutes”.

Thousands of regular travellers have signed a

petition supporting his cheery routine. Yet he must

know that some early morning commuters will not

be of his Tiggerish disposition, but share Eeyore’s

outlook on life. Not that Mr Knight is an offender

compared with many railway staff and train

drivers, who daily imagine themselves auditioning

for The X-Factor, practising their beatbox skills and

adding quips to announcements about incidents

leading to late arrival. A microphone is a weapon

that invites strict licensing.

Attention, please!

C

larity brings its own rewards. Boris Johnson

went to Berlin yesterday and reaffirmed his

absolute insistence that the Irish backstop

must be dropped from the EU Withdrawal

Agreement if there is to be a Brexit deal. But far

from rejecting this out of hand, as widely predicted

• especially by Remainers – Angela Merkel left the
  door open to talks and a possible solution.
  The German Chancellor is nothing if not a
  pragmatist. She wants her country and the EU as
  a whole to retain good relations with the UK after
  Brexit. This is important diplomatically, militarily
  and economically. Mr Johnson has been accused of
  excessive and unjustified optimism in maintaining
  that a way through can be found. But Mrs Merkel
  was by no means dismissive. She conceded that the
  new UK government did not like the backstop and
  that it might be possible over the next 30 days to
  devise an alternative strategy.
  To that end, Mr Johnson needs to come up
  with workable proposals on the border, after
  which Mrs Merkel said a way could be found to
  reach a mutually beneficial trade agreement.
  Her approach contrasted with the hard-line
  rejectionism of Brussels – so much so that
  commentators who take their lead from the
  unelected bureaucrats were caught out and
  could not accept what they were hearing.
  In the end, this matter must be decided by the
  politicians who are accountable at the ballot box
  for the future wellbeing of their citizens, not by
  those who are content to harm their interests
  in order to preserve a moribund agreement.
  However, whether this auspicious start to Mr
  Johnson’s first foreign foray will continue in
  Paris today remains to be seen.

Backstop cheer

ESTABLISHED 1855

of the EU’s bizarre Tolstoyan wet

dream of a huge anti-Russian land

army, we should become the leader in

counter-cyberterrorism, intelligence

gathering and clandestine missions.

Thirdly, the bland response of “big

business” to the increasingly ethically

conscious tastes of the global middle

class is a potentially massive moment

for savvy British entrepreneurs.

What better time to tap rising demand

for craft beer in China, or fight for

a slice of the rocketing sustainable

beauty market in Brazil? Does

Mexican taco firm Gruma’s talent for

adapting to local tastes – swapping

cornflour for wheat in India, and

marketing its bread as ideal for stuffing

with Peking duck in China – offer

food for thought for niche British

companies that punch below their

weight abroad? Could our top building

materials firms glean something from

Nigeria’s leading company, which,

perhaps surprisingly for an oil nation,

produces cement to ship across Africa

and Asia?

The ancient Chinese general Sun

Tzu said: “In the midst of chaos, there

is also opportunity.” As we finally

prepare to leave the EU after three

years of hysterical bungling, those

who remain committed to Brexit

should know. The next task will be

to prove that lesson to the world.

We accept letters

by post, fax and

email only. Please

include name,

address, work and

home telephone

numbers.

111 Buckingham

Palace Road,

London

SW1W 0DT

fax

020 7931 2878

email

dtletters@

telegraph.co.uk

follow

Telegraph Letters

on Twitter

@LettersDesk

follow Sherelle Jacobs on Twitter

@Sherelle_E_J; read more at

telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Letters to the Editor

sir – I have a sin to confess. Here goes.

Some 10 years ago when I was the

incumbent in a two-church parish,

thieves stole lead from one church,

1,000 years old and of course listed.

It was the night before our autumn

fair and as I stood at the stall I was

manning in the church, I looked up

and could see extensive views of the

sky. Luckily it was not raining.

The lead taken was from a narrow

valley-gutter, out of view unless one

was airborne. Its value was probably

£30 but repairs to the roof, using lead,

would cost nigh on £900.

My lovely church architect (sadly

gone to glory) and I in less than a week

replaced the lead with can’t-tell-the-

difference plastic, for a fraction of

the cost. No further damage to that

beautiful church occurred.

To wait months while bureaucracy

ground exceeding slow was not

something I was going to consider. We

saved the parish a lot of money and

avoided endless committees.

I have to admit that in similar

circumstances I’d do the same again.

Diocesan advisory committees must,

I am afraid, be much more flexible

in their solutions to hard-pressed

congregations in dire straits.

I await a knock on the door.

Rev Simon Douglas Lane

Hampton, Middlesex

sir – Our village church suffered the

loss of its lead roof but now, after

protracted negotiation, has a new

synthetic roof.

However, we are still concerned

that the gangs will return because the

assumption will be that the lead has

been replaced.

The blame lies with the failure of

police in detecting crimes and the

realisation by criminals that it is highly

unlikely they will be caught.

Dr Michael A Fopp

Soulbury, Buckinghamshire

sir – Where does this stolen lead end

up? All scrap metal dealers are meant

to be controlled, so who is buying it?

Peter Butterfield

Hitchin, Hertfordshire

sir – In my Northamptonshire

benefice two churches have recently

had lead roofing stolen, each

suffering twice.

These thefts cost communities, as

well as the charitable trusts we rely

on, tens of thousands of pounds, time

and again. The cost of insurance rises

too, and then there is the time and

effort expended by parishioners and

diocesan personnel.

Lead is replaced for the criminals to

benefit from. Why?

The lead cannot be properly

protected and there are alternatives

which should be used, but the

stubbornness of Historic England and

others prevents it.

A roof is to protect the building

from the elements; that’s all it is

required to do. We simply must stop

wasting money and use our resources

for what Christ would have us do. We

are one of the richest countries in the

world and yet have homeless people.

Let us be serious about our priorities.

Charles Field

Hinton-in-the-Hedges, Northants

The sin of mending the church roof secretly when lead thieves strike Science of Brexit

sir – The article by Angus Dalgleish

(“No, of course Brexit won’t damage

British science”, August 10) is to be

welcomed. Like Professor Dalgleish, I

have been the grateful recipient of the

occasional grant from the EU.

One of the main reasons scientists

support the decision of the people to

leave the EU is, I suspect, that

dogma is a concept unknown to

science. Yet it is the glue that holds the

EU together.

Dr Charles Pasternak

London SW

sir – Boris Johnson should focus on

France’s Emmanuel Macron, as he

will be the key to unlocking the Brexit

problem. Angela Merkel retires in

the spring and her legacy is the EU,

the unification of Germany and the

incorporation into it of the eastern

states. Giving the UK a free pass to “EU

benefits” is not part of her plan.

President Macron, however, is the

other main player in the EU and his

objectives are different. He has at least

three years, possibly 10, to go, and

wants to become the bloc’s dominant

political figure. The last thing he needs

is a belligerent member state with

a strong prime minister. He wants

Britain well away from the EU. But

he also needs to retain us as a close

security and economic partner, so will

in the end broker a deal that is in his,

as well as France’s, best interests.

The backstop is a sideshow. Any

cross-border transactions are so small

as to be unimportant in the whole

EU context. Johnson, Merkel and

Macron have one thing in common – a

willingness to throw Leo Varadkar

under the bus as soon as it suits them.

David James

Chaddesley Corbett, Worcestershire

Kashmir’s plight

sir – General David Petraeus and

Lord Gadhia’s article (“India and

Pakistan must look beyond Kashmir”,

August 17) overlooks the human

tragedy unfolding in Indian-occupied

Kashmir. This is an internationally

recognised dispute yet UN Security

Council resolutions calling for

Kashmiris’ right to self-determination

under a UN-supervised plebiscite

remain unimplemented.

India is the so-called largest

democracy in the world, yet its

behaviour in Kashmir has been widely

reported by the international media,

and documented by the UN’s High

Commissioner for Human Rights,

Amnesty International, Human Rights

Watch and others, and its belligerence

endangers the security of the entire

region.

As a member of the UN, Pakistan

had been seeking the international

community’s intervention in the

region to prevent an escalation of

tension. It is Pakistan’s declared

policy to extend diplomatic, political

and moral support to the Kashmiris

in their legitimate right of self-

determination. Their plight deserves

the attention of not only Pakistan but

the entire civilised world.

Muneer Ahmad

First Secretary, Pakistan High

Commission

London SW

A spot of B&B

sir – At least John Humphrys realised

that it was a burglar (report, August 17)

he chased from his garden.

I am reminded of Edward

Carpenter, the eccentric former Dean

of Westminster, who, on coming home

one Sunday morning after taking

8am Communion, found a burglar

leaving his house. Thinking he was an

overnight guest, Carpenter said: “Oh,

aren’t you staying for breakfast?”

James Wilkinson

London SW

Powers of arrest

sir – The sub judice rule does not

inhibit us from thinking about and

discussing the powers Parliament has

vested in the police.

In order to arrest 10 people, the

police need a reasonable belief that

each is guilty of the stated arrestable

offence. (It is vanishingly unlikely

that all 10 will be guilty even if

peripheral offences are added in.) The

power of arrest certainly does not

extend to a pool from which offenders

might emerge.

There is no power – however much

the police would like one – to arrest

those among whom there may be

prosecution witnesses.

Finally, our justice system takes

fierce pride in extending the full

protection of the law to travellers.

Peter R Douglas-Jones

Swansea

Today’s bad bet

sir – As the Government tries to tackle

addictive gambling, why does the BBC

encourage betting by giving out racing

tips daily on the Today programme?

Sir Michael Ferguson Davie Bt

Bath, Somerset

War novelists

sir – Perhaps the most notable

novelist inspired by the First World

War (Letters, August 20) is Henry

Williamson.

The Patriot’s Progress, illustrated

by the Australian artist William

Kermode, is uncompromisingly dark.

More balanced were the five volumes

that cover the war in his 15-volume

A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight. It

contains one of the finest portrayals

in fiction of the Battle of Flanders.

Anthony Burgess included the series

in his 99 Novels: The Best in English

Since 1939.

The novels can be found online, and

some are being reissued in paperback

by Faber.

Roger Harrison

Guildford, Surrey

Green land for sale?

sir – As Donald Trump is in the market

for “real estate” (report, August 17),

might we offer a mutually beneficial

alternative to Greenland?

If he were to buy Ireland instead,

it would solve the backstop problem

and give him plenty of golf courses

on which to play. We might even get a

second state visit.

Roger Little

Tisbury, Wiltshire

Unsporting: Steve Smith falls after being struck by a delivery at Lord’s from Jofra Archer

GETTY IMAGES

SIR – As an American who, rather

unusually, loves the game of

cricket, I came away from Lord’s on

Sunday feeling rather sad and, yes,

ashamed. This was not only because

parts of the crowd were baying

for blood, but also because I do

not see any honour in winning

(or even drawing) when it has

come from bowling that is wilfully

aimed at a batsman’s head, knocking

him apparently unconscious and

putting his life at risk.

Jofra Archer bowled 44 overs and

struck Australian batsmen 11 times,

putting Steve Smith in hospital

and unable to play at Headingley.

Without Smith, a victory there can

only be judged a hollow one for

England. What glory is there in that?

It is not cricket.

I began following the game

in 1974, during the winter Test

series, when Dennis Lillee and Jeff

Thomson were bowling bouncers.

Then, in contrast to today, the

British media decried their actions.

In the Seventies one could at least

claim that it was an Australian

response to the “bodyline”

series and somehow justified.

Now, however, there can be no

justification for such a tactic.

In the past 45 years there have

been two developments that make

this kind of bowling unacceptable.

First, since 1974 medical research

has proved that head injuries can

leave permanent brain damage; and

secondly, we have seen frightening

injuries, and the death of Philip

Hughes. There is nothing sporting

about a player being killed by a

deliberate action. It is not even

manslaughter, since there was

malice aforethought; it is murder.

It is not the fault of the bowlers

that this danger exists, and I do

not blame Archer. It is the game’s

authorities who are at fault. They

need to act immediately before this

scourge causes more injuries or

even another death.

The answer is a prohibition

against bowling any ball above chest

level to a batsman. A violation of

this should result in the award of

six runs to the batting team. Were

it repeated, the umpire should

remove the bowler from the attack.

Dr David D Hebb

London N

Dangerous bowling takes the joy out of cricket

sir – It was not Sir Adrian Boult who

made the comparison between The

Kingdom and Gerontius quoted by

Rupert Christiansen in his review

(August 20). The comparison was

made by Frank Schuster and quoted

occasionally by Boult, who may have

regretted doing so, as he was so often

challenged about this judgment.

Boult’s classic recording of The

Kingdom, now 50 years old, could well

be supplemented by a new one with

the superb soloists and conductor so

rightly praised by Mr Christiansen.

John Oxlade

Mansfield College, Oxford

The music that made Gerontius sound amateur

The Daily Telegraph Thursday 22 August 2019 *** 17

RELEASED BY "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws