Tag Archives: Brexit

Wake Up – the new series

26 Sep

Hibernation normally occurs in winter.

Activity is minimised. Survival burns through reserves.  The frenetic return is driven by a new hunger.

This year the seasonal cycle was flipped – must have been the heat, or just a weak spring

But – ‘Hej, we’re back now’, and the return is celebrated by Wake Up – a new series of reflections on the scramble to understand what exactly is going on.

Part 1, ‘So You Did?‘, kicked off with a curious blend of a World War 1 recruitment poster and Archbishop Welby’s speech to the TUC conference.

Slightly more awake, Part 2, ‘What Happened’ is out later today. and Part 3 will follow in a week’s time.

Waking Up to the realities of the wider world – new perspectives or just the old ones seen in a new light – dances around the dawn.

We might, of course, hit snooze and slip back into deep slumber – but the alarm is sounding.

Only when properly awake might we realise that we are letting go of something we’ve not fully grasped.

Welcome back.

___________________

UPDATE 01/Oct/2018:  Part 3 ‘Contra Dictions’ – the battles between Facts and Fictions.

UPDATE 09/Oct/2018:  Part 4, the series final, sets the Brexit agonies in context – a blip that now seems insignificant against global imperatives.  It questions the quality of leadership and has a former Dean of St Pauls turning in his grave.

Tags: , , , ,

Double Positive V Single Negative

12 Jul

The project – the reason I was spending so much time on the Island of Ireland – was extraordinary. Breathing new life into an economy wrecked by decades of disregard and battling legions of diehard naysayers was invigorating and challenging.  But more than the project itself, I found myself immersed in, mesmerised by, the local way of words – not just the accents but word choices and less inhibited conversational patterns.

Beyond marvelling at the quality of conversations – the highly-valued, hugely entertaining, fast-flowing and oft-surreal ‘craic’ – it was the contrast between Irish English and English English that hit hard between the ears.

Nowhere was this contrast more evident than in the matter of post-qualifiers – verbal reinforcements that bolster or modify statements.  To some it was a mild embarrassment but to my ears entirely natural that ‘to be sure’or ‘so it is’ could be twice repeated to hammer home the positive intent.  Not so at home in England where negativity was the norm with a single ‘don’t y’know’,‘innit’or in strangled parliamentary speak, ‘is it not’.

That contrast between the double positive and single negative post-qualifiers seemed to speak volumes of cultural variance and, in the context of the project, was a huge contribution to the success of the project and its call for imaginative/brave/fresh thinking.

I was reminded of this when writing ‘Word of the Week: Sophistry’– letting off steam as Westminster wrestles with the consequences of addiction to right-headed (AKA wrong-headed) ideology. A colleague working on the Irish project often complained that if stated three times, falsehoods became normalised and regarded as truth.

Taking a principled stand against sophistry is always a test of leadership – and in its absence huge damage can be incurred.  We’ve witnessed that in the promotion of Brexit but that is only the tip of the iceberg.  For the moment, in its 70thyear, the NHS has a temporary reprieve but do not doubt that the destroyers have gone away.  Meanwhile the BBC remains a popular target and silence fogs the failures of rail privatisations.  In that era of post-privatisations, it was, apparently, entirely ideologically sound to silence any criticism of the lack of full fibre until now when the consequences of underinvestment are becoming apparent.

The destruction of decades of public investment on the altar of avarice is rooted in the narrow negativity that prevails over the more forward-looking positivity that we all need to make a difference. To be sure.  To be sure.

________________

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Can Blockchain really save the Brexit Bacon?

15 Aug

[Editorial co-authored by Susie McAleer of 21c Consultancy & David Brunnen, Groupe Intellex]

Brexit=uncertainty.   Business leaders have no idea how government negotiations with the European Commission will evolve. The likelihood that nothing will change is at, or very close to, absolute zero.

What is certain is that cross-border transactions will be different in at least two ways – pricing and regulation. The consequences (even if the UK moves to WTO tariffs) will probably involve potentially costly administrative adjustments to the way we all do business in any transnational flow whether import or export, inward investment, overseas acquisition, emigration or immigration.

Anyone already immersed in overseas trade will know the current complexities. In recent times it has been useful to (a) simplify the process and/or (b) outsource the hassle. Wholesale elimination of tariffs and trade barriers within the EU expanded the scale of accessible markets on our doorstep. But old customs die hard, so a new industry has emerged – an army of specialist intermediaries to handle the ‘red tape’ and logistical complexities that add extra costs but very little extra value.

Conventional analysis would see easy/local market access shrinking and also increased regulatory red tape, but could Brexit have an unforeseen silver lining? Some enthusiastic Brexiteers have suggested that technology can somehow bridge new borders.

  • Is it possible that we now have the will to design transnational transaction systems sans rubber stamps in triplicate?
  • Is it plausible that the UK could find competitive advantage through some new global protocol to make trading easier?
  • What is the chance that all other countries would agree and fall into line?
  • And could all this be designed and implemented before the guillotine falls?

It may sound unlikely but the underlying spirit of our digital times – disintermediation – should, in theory, sweep away the old (or new) roadblocks.

Consider, for example, the vexed question of a land border between Northern Ireland and the rest of that island. Their border had lost much of its polarising significance but may now return to regulate the flow of people, goods and services. Can technology save everyone the hassle of stopping, searching and rubber-stamping?

Well, in theory, yes. Adopting blockchain technology has the potential to create simple, fast and efficient systems for organisations on both sides of the border enabling them to trade using a robust, secure platform and network with automatically pre-assured customs clearances, dues paid and all boxes ticked.

The chain itself is simply an electronic document ledger that enables people and businesses to share information – financial, legal, electronic or physical asset description – securely across a network of computers without the need for a central authority, be it a bank or government department. No one member of the chain has the power or authority to change or tamper with the records, and the blockchain algorithms keep everyone honest by ensuring data integrity and authentication of the transactions. This transference of governance from centralized institutions to a system of distributed networks of peer-to-peer collaborators ensures a trust protocol is created and managed by the members of the chain, the ones who create and drive value, not by a third-party middleman.

So, that’s the theory, but what would the blockchain mean in real life?

In the Northern Ireland Brexit case blockchain could provide complete trade transparency enabling borders to be kept open without hindrance. For example, supply blockchain’s would ensure the provenance of food (the titular brexit bacon) and of goods that cross the border, ensuring they are transported at the right temperature, in the right volumes, keeping quality from source to destination without the need for overwhelming volumes of paperwork and ‘red tape’.

Selling high value assets, such as property and enterprises between those from Northern Ireland and the Republic could be made faster with automatic and immutable historic ownership data, from copies of deeds to due diligence information, thereby removing fraud and reducing bureaucracy.

The use of faster, secure payments means local businesses could rival bigger companies. Imagine if a local mini-cab firm could take on Uber by placing transactions on the blockchain, thereby removing the centralized organistation taking a 30% cut from fees. The idea of blockchain is to give better value/more money to those in the network, rather than large corporates based in, say, China or the USA.

Whilst the potential of blockchain is still largely theoretical, advances in its use for trade are being made. At the start of 2017 seven European banks (Deutsche Bank, HSBC, KBC, Natixis, Rabobank, Société Générale and UniCredit) created the Digital Trade Chain (DTC) consortium in order to collaborate on the design, development and commercialisation of a shared supply chain management and trade finance platform for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) using blockchain technology. In addition, a new initiative called BlockchainCITIES provides an EU membership platform of local authorities in BlockChain transition. Could we be on the cusp of reinventing the trusted city trading partnerships of the Hanseatic League in the 15th Century?

Perhaps a good UK starting point would focus on trade between cities within Commonwealth countries where we have a shared heritage of law and commercial frameworks.

However, it remains to be seen if the traditionally bureaucratic institutions such as banks and government can actually drive an innovation of this nature and overcome a range of deterrents from high initial capital costs to large computing power consumption. The new energy for development of blockchain-enabled cross-border trading will almost certainly come from major cities where inward investors could be attracted by frictionless trading environments.

BUT, all this hope (and hype) for an easier trading life requires massive concerted effort.

In the US-State of Illinois, for example, 107 students have been immersed in a month-long ‘hackathon’ to explore the possibilities.  Five pilot projects undertaken by the state include the areas of land title registry, academic credentials, health provider registries, energy credit marketplaces and vital records.

‘The state’s idea is that if it can figure out blockchain, there are a lot of record keeping and transaction processes that can be made more secure and more reliable.‘ – statescoop.com  But none of these pilots have yet tackled International Trade Transactions – most probably because they live in a giant single market where import/export rules are a minority sport.

As yet there is little sign that here in the UK we are assembling any similarly scaled collaborative efforts – and time to organise these before Brexit is slipping away.

Does the UK government have any clear idea of the investment required for such innovation?

And if the Department for International Trade is not on top of this, will some of our leading Cities take the lead?

Will we let go of something that we’ve not yet fully grasped?

One thing is certain; we have a golden opportunity now to transform digital platforms for the borders of tomorrow with Blockchain forming the central nervous system of trade.  Surely, regardless of Brexit outcomes, it’s time to start a chain reaction!

_______

(C) (2017) 21c Consultancy & Groupe Intellex

Tags: , , , ,

London’s post-Brexit Futures

16 Nov

WestminsterAlexandra Jones (Chief Executive at Centre for Cities) is right to point out the strengths of London’s enviable standing as a European economic leader.

In terms of scale the capital’s economic output has a 12.5% lead over second-placed Paris. Scale garners great advantages – like availability of diverse skills – but also creates challenges that eat away at economic and societal sustainability.

Brexit may have induced the summer’s existential crisis amongst London citizens but more recent events have confirmed that uncertainty is the new certainty. Clearly, comforting as recitations of strengths may be, we should avoid complacency and focus more attention on bolstering longer-term directions. So Alexandra is also right to warn of the danger signs signaled by productivity and innovation data that place London in a less-enviable position – even if Brexiteers question the veracity of variables used in economic models.

In matters socioeconomic, like brushing your teeth, we have choices that must be exercised if default decay is to be avoided. It might well be useful and timely to remind leaders that the entire country will suffer if London loses its edge but, more significantly, future fortunes will be decided by the individual decisions of thousands of enterprise leaders – and the speed of those decisions. ‘Muddling through’ seems not to be high on the curricula of MBA courses.

It is therefore entirely sound that the capital, its employers, citizens and leaders of the entire eco-system of stakeholders, should identify weaknesses and not be brow-beaten into silence by ‘patriots’ who would cry ‘talking down’ at any honest self-assessment. . . . and not merely kvetching over the state of the kitchen but cracking on with remedial resourcefulness.

Cracking on with future sustainability has two very obvious themes – investments in infrastructure and in advocacy. The former is an urgent response to the woeful state of London’s digital connectivity – trailing far behind the sort of facilities that villagers in remote parts of Lancashire now regard as commonplace.  The latter, investment in advocacy, demands an attitudinal change in the way London projects itself to the world at large and needs fully to co-opt London’s digitalized diaspora.

Earlier this year (prior to the mayoral election) FISP championed the creation of DfL as a platform for accelerating future-proofed digital connectivity. The underlying principles remain valid and recent reconsiderations of the role of passive infrastructures have exposed the urgency. Now, in advance of the 2018 Global Summit, a small coordinating body is preparing an advanced understanding of what previously may have been called ‘Smart City’ but is now becoming a stronger ‘Intelligent Community’ theme – a shift above and beyond the cleverness of technology towards deeper understanding of the myriad ways in which society can enable greater economic and community wellbeing.

London’s future sustainability as a place to live, work, and dream is dependent on both of these themes – unconstrained connectedness and a deeper mission – with recharged resourcefulness in the way those themes are articulated to Europe and the world at large.

(Written as a response to observations by Centre for Cities – 14th November 2016)

Tags: , , , ,