GB: 'oh, the situation's critical but not serious.'

That was the response I got from a senior manager at my London office in the Seventies. Inflation was running twenty-seven percent, the miners were on strike, and the entire country seemed headed for the abyss. His remark struck me as excessively sang froid; only later, as an immigrant from the colonies, did I come to understand that an Englishman never flinches when faced with an existential threat. 

Soon afterwards, the crisis averted, I mixed with several dozen international managers at Disneyland's EPCOT center. Each country manager gave a presentation on how its teams were coping with local conditions. The majority of speakers projected themselves as urban warriors - chest-thumping their way to find 'new revenue streams' that would be monitored by 'mega-talented people.'

This heady momentum continued until we heard a presentation by the chairman of the London office. He titled his talk 'Managing the muddle'. I forget the detail but the theme of his presentation was that the way we manage our lives is always dominated by unexpected events. So we try to 'manage the muddle.'

This is a uniquely British attitude to problems; it is understated, humble, and thoughtful. Not for the UK the sometimes erratic 'ready/fire/aim' of American managers or the bold shouts of of 'yes, we can!' No, the Brit approach is deliberate, but flexible enough to accommodate the unexpected. 

Until Brexit.

As we know, the decision for the UK to leave the European Union (EU) in June, 2016 was triggered by older Britons in the country's northern hinterland. Cosmopolitan Londoners and younger citizens in the south, however, voted to remain in the EU. The 'leavers' outvoted the 'remainers' by less than four percentage points. 

A few months later, I remember saying to some older English friends "How could you?' To which they replied 'How could your people elect Trump?' Fair point. Yet Trump will be gone in four to eight years, maybe sooner. Brexit is permanent. 

I'm someone who, for years, made a good living selling unconventional marketing solutions  to skeptical businessmen. So I was astonished how wickedly the 'LEAVE' campaign was sold to the British public. There were promises of £350m per week  being poured into the cash-strapped National Health Service from saving made by exiting the EU. What was never mentioned was the 'divorce bill' exacted by the EU, a figure in the region of 50m euros. In fact, the leader of the 'Leave' campaign recently admitted that if they had known then what they know now, the vote would have gone to the 'Remain' bloc.

Also, there were promises made about the UK regaining control of immigration. Why was this seen as necessary? Because the 2011 census proved that, in the previous eight years, three million more people born overseas had come to live in England and Wales. By 2011, only 44.9 per cent of London residents identified as 'white British.' Three million people in England and Wales were living in households where not one adult spoke English as their main language.'*

In short, forecasts showed that white Britons would become a minority in London by the end of the current decade, the Muslim population would have doubled and the name Mohammed would become the most popular 'given' name in the country (it already has.)

These are the facts. Some people are comfortable with them; others, not so much.

Yet neither of these two grand 'benefits' - cash for the NHS and regaining control of immigration - are likely to happen, given the state of current Brexit negotiations.

No surprise then, that some commentators are questioning whether the UK has the brains and brawn to secure a face- saving exit from the EU. Steve Erlanger of the New York Times, wrote that 'the ship of state is unmoored, heading to nowhere.' Two days ago - according to the London Times - the UK representative of the European Court of Justice questioned 'the quality of politicians in Westminster'; or, as the Brits like to say, 'are they fit for purpose?' Are they managing the muddle? It would seem not.

Meanwhile, economically, a scary scenario is unfolding: the UK budget this week forecast for the next five years, a GDP growth of less than 2%, and an earnings growth of 0.6%. Sterling is weakening, so even if people earned more money (which they won't) they would buy fewer imported goods and foreign holidays.

Yet the UK is still the fifth largest economy in the world, foreign investment is high and unemployment is at its lowest since the mid-70s.

So the situation is critical... but 'serious'? I know what my former boss would say.

Here's what's equally puzzling: in London last week, I was energized by the scenes around Sloane Square. Here were well-groomed, young professionals filling restaurants, bars, and artisanal produce stores. Along the Thames, the Arab-funded conversion of the massive Battersea Power Station (above) into fashionable apartments and shopping centers, continued apace. All the signs indicated a prosperous economy. But a friend quickly pointed out that central London was unrepresentative of GB because it is one the the richest parts of the thriving south east.

A few days later, however, I was in the East Midlands, a part of the country where 60% of the over-65s had voted to leave the EU. In a Leicestershire village I talked with people over 65 who were well-travelled and smartly dressed. These folks told me they were still satisfied with their vote to 'leave.' Others said they admired Trump 'because he knows how to connect with people like us.' 

Yes, Leicester itself showed all the signs of Britain's northern cities - Victorian or pre-war architecture, choked traffic, and poor atmosphere on a foggy day. Yet the city boasts the largest economy in the midlands. Multiculturalism abides: The population is 50% White; the other 50% is made up of other races, principally Asian (37%.) Traffic police at intersections are expected to speak Gujarati, the language of one in five citizens.

What does this tell us? I came back to the US with three impressions: One, the negotiations over Brexit are in a terrible muddle, seemingly beyond the competence of politicians to 'sort it.' Two: the demography of Britain is undergoing an epic shift, especially in the cities. Three: London and the south-east are thriving (as we knew) but those - largely in the north - who voted to leave seem untroubled by the muddle of doing so. For them, rather like Trump supporters, the alternatives are far worse - be they the unelected Eurocrats in Brussels or the 'elites' in Washington. 

And so they muddle on...


* Source: Office for National Statistics, 2011 census. Available at https:///www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011 census.


© Brian Clewly Johnson
Amagansett, NY
🇺🇸
November, 2017.