Ernst’s Economy present at the ‘For the Turnaround’ event, together with Paul van Liempt, Kim Putters, Harald Benink and Arend Jan Boekestijn

I am very blessed with the contacts that my personal blogsite ‘Ernst’s Economy for You’ (the one that you are reading now) has brought me in the six years of its existence. The advantage of getting to know new people, is that these people can bring you at places and events where other people don’t go, as they are unaware of them happening.

The distinguished Paul van Liempt, interviewer par excellence, TV-presenter at the Dutch business channel RTLZ and radio presenter at BNR News Radio is one of those people that added a little extra to my life.

The Freedom Lab where For the Turnaround was organized
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Paul van Liempt, Interviewer par Excellence
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Paul is someone, who does not only do his job in the meadi, but looks at his place in society and at the positive influence that he can have on other people.

Together with philosopher Ad Verbrugge, he started the initiative “Voor de Ommekeer” (i.e. ‘For the Turnaround’ ) as a discussion platform, aimed at the time after the crisis has been fully solved.

Philosopher Ad Verbrugge, co-founder of For the Turnaround
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

The people behind For the Turnaround [I use the English translation from now on – EL] are very aware of the fact that the world can’t just simply resume their ‘business as usual’ stance after the crisis and the depression coming out of it ended. 

Casual Discussions in and around The Freedom Lab
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Casual Discussions in and around The Freedom Lab
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Casual Discussions in and around The Freedom Lab
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

The leading countries in the world can’t act as if nothing happened at all during the last decade and the world did not come in the worst economic/financial crisis since eighty years. And in the grasp of mounting, violent nationalism, rising international tensions, the emergence of more powerful and ruthless dictators and erratic presidents all over the world and last, but not least, crumbling supranational organizations, like the European Union and the United Nations.

For the Turnaround therefore brings several thought leaders together for open discussions about the economy, the current societies and the international political and religious situation, hoping to find a way to make the world a better and more stable place after this all has ended.

Paul van Liempt invited me for this event, as he probably appreciates my original thinking and the fact that I dare to ask questions and give my opinions in the ongoing discussions. And Paul understands the fact that I try to change things for the better on my level and within my reach.

Among the guests of this event on Sunday May 21st, which was not televised and not recorded at all, were:

Kim Putters, Director of the Social-Cultural Planning Bureau
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

• Kim Putters, the distinguished director of the official Dutch ‘Social-Cultural Planning Bureau', which researches and publishes about the softer, less tangible, but nevertheless important sides (i.e. the social and cultural sides) of the Dutch society, next to the Central Planning Bureau (economic and financial outlook) and the Central Bureau of Statistics;

Arend Jan Boekestijn, a prominent member of the liberal-conservative of the VVD party

Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

• Arend Jan Boekestijn, an eloquent and intelligent historian and former national VVD-politician (Dutch liberal-conservative party), with a much broader and more intelligent view on The Netherlands and the European Union than most of his party members;

Harald Benink, Professor in Banking and Finance in
discussion with Arend Jan Boekestijn,
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

• Harald Benink, a professor in Banking and Finance at the Tilburg University and someone as well with bright views on the Dutch and international economy.

Young rightwing, thought leader Sid Lukkassen, involved in the discussion at For the Turnaround
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

• Also another young thought leader was present: Sid Lukkassen, who replaced another guest who could not make it to the show. Sid Lukkassen is a right-wing thought leader and alderman for the VVD party in Duiven.

 

Paul van Liempt in discussion with Kim Putters
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

• Paul van Liempt and Ad Verbrugge acted both as discussion leaders and participants, even though the latter had some trouble with listening to his speaking partners, as he too often wanted to express his own opinions towards the other participants and the present public.

The original reason for this gathering of For the Turnaround was the strongly anticipated outcome of the French presidential elections. These elections were in advance considered as a touchstone for the real strength of the populist parties in Europe. 

When Marine Le Pen of Front National (French populist party) would have won these presidential elections and she would indeed effectuate her simmering plans for a French departure (i.e. Frexit) from the European Union, this could have become the beginning of the end for the EU and the Euro as a unity currency. France is one of the early founders of the European Economic Community and still one of the most influential and important members of the EU, whose departure from it would spell a dark future for the union. 

Fortunately, this did not happen as Emmanuel Macron of En Marche (a recently founded central-liberal movement), who is an avid supporter of the EU, won the elections and became the next president of France. Nevertheless, even though Macron won the second and decisive round with a landslide difference, it was a fact that Marine Le Pen was the runner up in these elections, making the Front National again a party to be reckoned with in France.

Therefore the main message that the people behind For the Turnaround wanted to express – now that the imminent danger of a Front National presidency was out of the way – was that this new, liberal president would not change much about the difficult political situation in France and the alienation between the different population groups in one of the largest countries in Europe. The symptoms perhaps vanished optically, but the disease was still very much there, waiting for another defining moment to come to the surface again.

France still has an issue with the often poor, poorly educated and unemployed people living in the banlieus in France – areas around the big cities with heavily populated blocks of flats, where many impoverished people from the former French colonies, like Algeria and Ivory Coast live. In these banlieus important factors like islamic radicalism, unemployment, poverty and hostile insurgence against the French government and the police cause many problems and turn the areas in ticking timebombs. 

Paul van Liempt in his trusted role as discussion leader
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Violent protests coming out of nowhere, chaotic uprisings and publicly displayed contempt for the police have already emerged at quite a few occasions and they can come to a new outburst over and over again.

At the same time, there are the rural French areas which have their own battles with economic backwardedness, obsolescence and poverty. One of the factors, the outflow of youngsters to the large cities leaving only the elderly behind in their home towns and villages, leads to a smaller economic role in society for such towns and villages and towards an impoverishing area. It is probably caused by the absence of large employers, who can create sufficient jobs and a prosperous future for the people originally living in these areas. 

The idyllic, rural landscape and the small, picturesk villages with their French wine, baguettes and ‘joy de vivre’ might still attract loads of tourists, but they cannot disguise that such small areas go through difficult times, with a difficult future ahead.

Ad Verbrugge and the present crowd both listen to the discussions
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Another complicating factor in France is the blatant allergy of the whole population for economic restructuring and societal changes and their ubiquitous proneness for protests and strikes against such changes. This makes it almost a political no go-area for politicians to endorse such radical, but probably necessary economic and social changes in the country, in order to prepare it for the 21st century. 

Most politicians simply don’t want to burn their fingers on such ‘hot potato’ topics and rather go with the flow of slow, slow change and even societal and political stand-still. And even when they try to change things more radically, their attempts mostly smother in the protests emerging all over the country. 

This is the reason that France has a undeniable history of shooting itself in the foot. The country wants the economic situation to change for the better, but seemingly doesn't understand that in order to change things, it must change society itself. Yet is seems that France must change economically and societally to stay in the race for future economic prosperity and not become a relic of backwardedness in Europe, totally dependent on agricultural produce and tourism, while Germany becomes the sole winner of the economic crisis and the undisputed export champion that keeps the whole EU afloat.

All these factors together make the French economic and societal problems urgent, but nevertheless very hard to solve. And in the process, the French problems turn into European problems as well, for the simple reason that Europe needs France's leadership more than it has ever needed the British leadership for instance.

One of the most visible problems after the deadly IS attacks in Nice and at the Bataclan concert hall, is the problem that the muslims in the banlieus become more and more radical and hostile in their vision on the islam, according to the people behind For the Turnaround. 

These muslims increasingly alienate themselves from the Christian majority in France, while releasing themselves for the toxic views of the radical Salafist islam. They slowly become endorsers of IS and Al Qaida, in their hate-driven battle against the Western world and everything for which it stands. Especially in France with its large and strongly growing population of formerly Algerian and Morrocan citizens, this is a mounting problem, which is nearly impossible to solve.

While the ‘moral majority’ of France now still chooses for French unity, ‘liberté, egalité et fraternité’( i.e. freedom, equality and brotherhood), it is a fact that this mounting alienation between the radical islamic minority and the Christian majority could lead to many more violent incidents and also for a greater popularity of the radical Front National, when another big terrorist attack occurs.

And when France sneezes, the European Union catches a cold.

The For the Turnaround group is watching the economic, societal and demographic situation in France closely and they are hoping that Emmanuel Macron, the bright and charismatic young president, can turn the tides for this country.

The events in France cannot be seen loose from the situation in the other European countries, like Germany and The Netherlands, where societal tensions are also rising between groups within the population. Or for instance Italy and Spain, where the economic situation is still extremely difficult, with high unemployment and a grim economic outlooki in some impoverished areas of the country.

Or Eastern Europe, where increasingly radical and dictatorial leaders set new and dangerous standards for societies within the EU. Everywhere the poisonous mixture of economic hardship, massive unemployment, a disappointed population losing trust in their own policital leaders and soaring religious and demographical tensions within the society, could act as a ticking timebomb within countries and in between countries.

Arend Jan Boekestijn and Paul van Liempt both closely listening to the discussions
Picture copyright of  Ernst Labruyère
Click to enlarge

Arend Jan Boekestijn, a very prominent VVD member and definitely part of the intellectual thought leaders within this liberal-conservative party, blamed the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (also VVD) for his generally lackluster defence of the EU and for his sensitivity for populist statements by other parties, like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) and the Forum for Democracy of young gun Thierry Baudet. This vulnerability for the populist voice made the general tone of voice of his own party more and more populist itself, making it sometimes quite hard to distinguish, whether a point of view came from the populist PVV or the mostly more moderate VVD itself.

Therefore it is so important, according to the For the Turnaround group that politicians speak out their confidence and trust into the European Union and make clear that they will go all the way to save this supranational institution that brought us all so many years of peace, friendship and prosperity between European countries. 

It is time that the European leaders become openly proud and protective of what they have and not threaten to ditch it all in cheap attempts to listen to the loudest ‘vox populis’. 

It was an interesting meeting in Amsterdam on May 21st and it is a good initiative to have such open discussions between  the thought leaders in Dutch society. Ernst's Economy for You will probably present again the next time of For the Turnaround.

Gibraltar and the domestic gains of old-fashioned, post-colonial sabre-rattling against a ‘vicious enemy’

I visited Gibraltar once in my life – in 1996 – during a fortnightly group roundtrip in a minivan in Spain. This roundtrip led us through the magnificent Spanish province of Andalucia and one day we visited indeed the most British part of Europe, located east of Dover.

I remember the beautiful view on the top of the mountain, the funny and energetic berber monkeys, the wonderful weather and the horrible British food – Shepherd’s Pie with overcooked carrots and greenpeas drowned in gravy –  which I suspect until this day gave our whole group a food poisoning that lasted for a minimum of two days for the lucky ones and among others much, much longer. But, to be frank, it could also be a fish dish in Spain itself, that caused our group’s discomfort.

And of course I remember how utterly British Gibraltar was, as a kind of open air museum crafted after the picture-perfect, proverbially British city that didn’t exist in reality. With red telephone booths, pubs, souvenir shops, restaurants featuring British ‘cuisine’ and other typically British paraphernalia for both tourists and anglophiles.

Now, twenty-odd years later, the same peninsula of Gibraltar is the subject of heavy, vocal sabre-rattling by both the Spaniards and the Britons.

Hardly the British government and diplomats delivered their Article 50-letter, effectuating the Brexit as a process, or the Spanish government smuggled a Gibraltar paragraph in the EU draft agreement that was the starting point for the orderly Brexit negotiations. The New York Times described the matter in the following snippets:

After it became clear Friday that the union’s remaining leaders might give Spain an effective veto over whether any deal applied to Gibraltar — a British territory long the subject of an acrimonious sovereignty dispute between London and Madrid — lawmakers in Britain and Gibraltar responded with defiance and concern.

Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, made his anger clear on Friday, calling Spain’s tactic “disgraceful” and “predatory.” He said in a statement about the insertion of language on Gibraltar into the European Union’s draft guidelines for negotiating a British withdrawal: “This unnecessary, unjustified and unacceptable discriminatory proposed singling out of Gibraltar and its people was the predictable machination of Spain.”

In Gibraltar, which has a clear frontier with Spain, the fear is different. It is that once Britain is outside the European Union, which guarantees free movement of people, Spain could demand concessions or make the border with Gibraltar harder to cross, effectively isolating the territory.

Although the mounting emotions about Gibraltar are perhaps understandable with both the Spain and British views and background in mind, the Spanish action – to make the negotiations with the UK an effective hostage of the future British plans for Gibraltar – was not so sensible from a political point of view. Especially as Spain itself has two exclaves – Ceuta and Melilla – on Moroccon soil; two exclaves which Spain is not likely to abandon soon.

On top of that, the situation around Gibraltar never stopped both the Spaniards and Britons from actively working together for 40 years within the European Union and its predecessors. And it also never stopped the British elderly from spending their finest years in Spanish holiday resorts and second houses, at the same time that their youngsters spent their holiday money in Spanish discotheques and pubs, while drinking (much too much) Spanish beer, wine and cocktails.

So the question is valid “what the fuzz is all about”?!

And while the Spanish action was already quite erratic to these eyes, the British reaction – especially represented by former minister and current Tory official Lord Michael Howard, as well as a few warmongering British newspapers – was straightforwardly bananas, as the following snippets from the Guardian show:

Theresa May would be prepared to go to war to protect Gibraltar as Margaret Thatcher once did for the Falklands, former Conservative leader Michael Howard has suggested, in comments that were immediately criticised as inflammatory.

Lord Howard’s suggestion that the prime minister would be ready to follow in the footsteps of her predecessor 35 years ago came alongside a government pledge to protect the sovereignty of Britain’s overseas territory.

Downing Street said May had called Fabian Picardo, the chief minister of Gibraltar, on Sunday morning to say the UK remained “steadfastly committed to our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy”.

Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, also used robust language. “We’re going to look after Gibraltar. Gibraltar is going to be protected all the way because the sovereignty cannot be changed without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar ,” he said.

The highly provocative picture of a British aircraft 
carrier at full steam in the British Telegraph newspaper
Picture courtesy of Telegraph.co.uk
Click to enlarge

And the Telegraph put things in overdrive, with a picture of a British war vessel and the following bragging lines about the British military strenght in a possible war with Spain:

Britain's Royal Navy is substantially weaker than it was during the Falklands War but could still "cripple" Spain, military experts have said.

Rear-Adml Chris Parry, a former director of operational capability at the Ministry of Defence,  has called on the Government to "appropriately" invest in Britain's military capacity if it wants to "talk big" over Gibraltar.

It came as a former Tory leader suggested that Theresa May would go to war with Spain to defend the sovereignty of the peninsular just as Margaret Thatcher did with the Falklands.

Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom quickly downplayed the situation in the media, reputedly by “laughing off the Spain war talk”, but the tone was definitely set.

As this incident shows, a toxic combination of aggrieved pride and an inferiority complex, as well as unhealthy nationalism and an uncertain future under influence of arguably the biggest and most uncertain, economic step in recent British history, could quickly lead to mounting anger and dangerous envy among the British population. And this by itself could lead to irreversible steps on the path towards war: hence the Falklands war, with its massive bloodshed and skyrocketing emotions about a few dry and almost deserted islands in the South Atlantic Ocean.

By focusing on a mutual enemy – Spain in this case – the British officials can distract the attention from the mounting political and economic uncertainty and the quite unfavourable outlook, emerging from the inconsiderate, to these eyes even reckless Brexit that the United Kingdom entered into.

The promise of a war against a ‘vicious enemy’, who threatens a country’s social, economic and political interests, is a catalyst for exploding nationalism and national pride. It will probably lead to a population that stands behind the government as one man, more than willing to chew through a dozen economic, sour apples on behalf of the greater good and the national interests being at stake. That is the reason that I am not absolutely sure that the situation between the United Kingdom and Spain will not escalate further, before coming to a timely end (or not).

Is the current British escalation strategy a dangerous strategy? It is very dangerous!

Is it effective? Oh yes, it is very effective for domestic purposes, as it overcomes political differences within the population and leads to ‘one people united against the enemy’!

And might the British government – perhaps with Lord Howard as a straw man – have deliberately (ab)used this Gibraltar crisis as a powerful weapon of government mass deception and nationalist demagoguery?! 

Well, to answer that question I gladly turn to what Sir Francis Urquhart, the main political vilain from the (far superior) British ‘House of Cards’, would have stated in this situation: “You might very well think that! I could not possibly comment!”