The Observer - 11.08.2019

• The Observer
  46 11.08.19 Comment & Analysis

There are reasons

to be cheerful.

We are seeing the

dying days of a

rancid old order

The political wind will

soon change in favour

of those demanding

good government

Don’t despair. We may

be living through an attempted

rightwing revolution, but its

foundations are rotten. There may

be a counter-revolution, as there is

after every revolution, and it will be

built on much fi rmer ground. The

charlatans may be in control in both

Britain and the US, but their time

is limited. Their programmes are

self-defeating and destructive and

they do not speak to the dynamic

and increasingly ascendant forces in

both our societies.

What has happened in the

US after the atrocities in El Paso

and Dayton is instructive. It is a

tipping point. The National Rifl e

Association may tell Donald Trump

that any attempt at gun control will

not fl y with his political base, but

Trump can read the runes. For the

Republicans to become the party

in de facto defence of what has

suddenly become crystallised as

white supremacist terrorism would

be electoral suicide. The president

has to move, not least because

even his base is shifting. Too many

Americans now fear becoming the

victims of random murder.

Few can dispute that,

astonishingly, while the US has

5% of the world’s population,

it has 35%-50% of civilian gun

ownership, a trend that simply has

to be reversed. Within a decade,

I am sure, the debate will move on,

as white supremacists continue

their killing spree, from hardening

background checks to debating

the constitutional right to bear

arms. This must happen and it will

highlight the marginalisation of

rightwing republicanism. And when

the political wind changes in the US,

it also changes in Britain.

Trump in the US and Boris

Johnson in the UK are the extreme

culmination of what Reagan and

Thatcher began 40 years ago. It

started as a legitimate if contestable

desire to reframe the postwar

settlement, limit the state, promote

business and individual self-

reliance. But as the great political

scientist Samuel Beer argued, it

was, paradoxically, supported

culturally by the individualism and

nonconformism of the Woodstock

generation.

Forty years on, continued

rightwing political ascendancy

has morphed into menacing

rightwing ideologies. The role of

US republicanism as the libertarian

champion of guns is matched by

the descent of the Conservative

party into English nationalism, with

a no-deal Brexit as its talismanic

policy, even if it means breaking

up the UK. But a no-deal Brexit

will become an infl ection point for

a parallel fi ghtback in Britain. The

devastating economic and political

consequences – a long recession , a

broken housing market, collapsed

sterling, unfair trade deals – will

inevitably raise the question of how

it ever happened. Suddenly, the

British constitution, the long sleeper

issue in British politics, will become

the new political battleground.

Britain is almost alone in having

no written constitution. Whoever

commands a majority in the House

of Commons can do what they like

without constitutional constraint

• hold a referendum transforming
  Britain’s treaty obligations with no
  requirement for a super-majority
  or ignore a no-confi dence vote in
  the House of Commons for long
  enough to deliver a no-deal Brexit.
  The constitution does empower the
  monarch to assert fair play and the
  pubic interest, but a non-elected
  head of state can never actually act.
  This is no longer sustainable. We
  needed the Queen to insist that a

referendum as important as that on

EU membership required a super-

majority; we will need her to sack

Boris Johnson if he tries to stay in

offi ce after losing a no-confi dence

vote or to time a general election

for after 31 October, so bypassing

the Commons to effect a no-deal

Brexit. But she knows she can only

act politically once. If she sacks

Johnson she makes enemies of the

English nationalists; if she doesn’t,

she makes enemies of everyone else.

Either way, her legitimacy is ruined.

Only an elected head of state has

the legitimacy to hold the ring at

times like these – facing electoral

consequences if they get it wrong.

The question of how we want to

be governed is no longer abstract:

it goes to the heart of giant new

cultural forces that want good

government. The generations

championing individualistic

hedonism and social atomisation –

the unwitting cultural accomplices

of the right – are being succeeded by

the Extinction Rebellion generation

who are rediscovering collectivism.

As the UN Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change last week spelled

out , how we all behave, in particular

the food we consume, will be crucial

in determining the future of life.

Around the world, there is a boom in

substitutes for meat, as consumers

switch to plant-based diets.

Nor is it just eating. Decisions on

everything from the use of plastics

to the frequency of fl ying have a

collective impact on everyone.

Companies are fi nding

their record on sustainability is

under the microscope as never

before. Whether public utilities

or global multinationals , no one

escapes the new requirement to do

business sustainably. This dynamic

is driving the imperative to reshape

capitalism around stakeholder

principles.

But only so much can come from

pressure from below: governments

must act from above and how

we are governed is moving to the

centre of the political debate. Wise

and activist government – checked,

balanced, accountable, suffi ciently

federal to accommodate the

demands of Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland and serviced by

an impartial civil service – is going

to be crucial in creating a greener

society, a reformed capitalism and

reduction of disfi guring inequalities.

The need for such governance

will extend internationally. The

case for the EU will be as an agent

for Europe -wide sustainability: the

ESU – European Sustainable Union.

Its actions will become the global

standard-setter for the environment.

If we leave the EU, at the heart of the

case for rejoining will be the need to

make the greening of our continent

a common cause.

So don’t despair. The no-deal

Brexiters do not have the force

behind them, any more than does

Trump. They are losers, on the

wrong side of history. Better people

will enter politics. Old parties will

be rejuvenated: new ones take life.

There will be a counter-revolution –

it’s already in the making.

Young supporters of

Extinction Rebellion in

London. Photograph by

Guy Bell/Shutterstock

Will

Hutton

May I have

a word?

Jonathan

Bouquet

The shifting

patterns of English:

loving the linguistic

entente cordiale

^ @williamnhutton

Th ere’s nothing quite so

guff aw-making to an Anglo-

Saxon sensibility in need of its

funny bone being tickled than

a French worthy having a fi t of

the vapours.

Last week didn’t disappoint.

And all over the delightful word

“love”. Apparently, French

online advertisers prefer it to

“l’amour”, which has got the

culture minister, Franck R iester,

in a right royal Gallic tizzy. “ In

this linguistic globalisation , our

duty is to refuse any tendency

to move towards a single [world]

language [and] any weakening

of the diversity, as of cultures,

in France and elsewhere.”

Sorry, Franck, that particular

cheval has long bolted. Th e

Académie française has sought

to preserve the sanctity of the

language, but has been fi ghting

a losing battle. Th e French

have been long been happy to

order a Big Mac. I admire the

spirit but, in a time of universal

online accessibility, it might

well be better to take it on the

chin. After all, the British have

easily assimilated any number

of French words and phrases

into everyday use, enhancing,

not diminishing, our language

• ménage à trois, pied à terre,
  tê te à tê te. So far be it for me to
  tell them to unbend a little, but
  perhaps a more laissez-faire
  attitude would be in order.
  I occasionally uncover
  delightful and underused words
  and damn me if I haven’t found a
  couple that have appropriately
  French roots. So let’s welcome

“ seigniorage ”, as in: “Th e Bank

of England makes £450m in

seigniorage, earnings on the

money that high street banks

hand it in return for notes and

coins.” Wonderful word, but

tricky to slip into a passing

conversation.

As is cabotage – the

transport of goods or p eople

in the same country by

an operator from another

country. Probably neither will

enter everyday usage – oh

well, c’est la vie.

Jules et Jim (François Truffaut,
1962): ménage à trois?
ПОДГОТОВИЛА

ГРУППА

"What's News"

VK.COM/WSNWS