Constitutional Dark Clouds over Great Britain

Basically, at the very bottom of life, which seduces us all, there is only absurdity, and more absurdity. And maybe that's what gives us our joy for living, because the only thing that can defeat absurdity is lucidity.

Albert Camus

And absurd it seemed when an announcement was made today from the UK Government that, after the Chancellor was defeated by the House of Lords, the UK could slip into a "constitutional crisis".

The story, in short, goes like this: The Tory government wants to reform the tax credit system by sloshing them on the one hand, but on the other hand raising the minimum wage. Tories believe tax credits are unfair and costly. They introduced this new bill, a bill which was heavily opposed by the whole opposition. The biggest concern about the new bill was, that by abolishing tax credits the poorest of the poor would have been hit the hardest.

The bill went through the House of Commons, got a majority vote, and was passed to the House of Lords where it was expected to be nodded off, too. But it didn't! The Lords put in their veto and delayed the bill expecting an enquiry as to what the impact for the poorest households would have been in case the bill had been introduced. The Chancellor and Prime Minister were embarrassed and probably pissed off and announcements made publicly that the House of Lords overstepped their boundaries, hence possibly creating a constitutional crisis. 

In order to understand this whole issue better, there is a tradition dating back a bit more than 100 years that the House of Lords would not block any financial legislation. But it is a tradition, not the rule, nothing has ever been written down, and that's the important bit here. This is also why one can hear Tories say something along the line: How dare the non-elected House of Lords overrule the elected House of Commons! Yawn! Let me be honest here, I am so glad the Upper House did what they did. Not because I think the tax credit bill was unfair (I don't write about the bill as such), but because it shows victory of democracy and common sense! 

My alarm bells went off when I read the term "constitutional crisis" and that the government wanted to review the composition of members of the House of Lords and add a couple of Tories so they'd be silenced in the future. For me, this is the real crisis!

1st: There is not such a thing like a written constitution detailing exactly what the roles and responsibilities of both Houses of Parliament are. Traditions and a very fluid understanding of those competences are imminent and can barely be legally challenged by a "Constitutional Court of Justice", which also doesn't exist in the UK. What confidence can the public have in their government if Westminster can fudge their responsibilities according to their liking?  

2nd: Changing to composition of the Upper House just so they don't hinder the Lower House from making laws is in my understanding an act of treason. It reminds me of Putin becoming prime minister, only to become president again afterwards, and of Hitler flooding the Reichstag with Nazis and making laws to legalise dictatorship. This can't be right! 

What amazes me, whereas my own alarm bells ring like Big Ben on New Years Eve, the country seems to accept this and the press isn't overly concerned. Political Fudge Alert is on a minimum! And the Brits complain about the EU; duh! 

The House of Lords have already postponed several legislations in this legislative period. This is the only thing they can do really, postpone. But it's good enough to embarrass any government and have them revise previously passed bills by the Commons. This time the government speaks about constitutional crisis and threatens the Lords with reforms. Again. 

Let's hope those reforms, if they should ever come, which I doubt, are real ones and not just another drop of water onto a hot stone. Let's not forget what Albert Camus already said: Lucidity is the only thing that can defeat absurdity.   

ESTP - The Doer and Entrepreneur

Today I did one of those tests that bumped into me on Facebook. And this is the result: 

As an ESTP, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you take things in via your five senses in a literal, concrete fashion. Your secondary mode is internal, where you deal with things rationally and logically.

ESTPs are outgoing, straight-shooting types. Enthusiastic and excitable, ESTPs are "doers" who live in the world of action. Blunt, straight-forward risk-takers, they are willing to plunge right into things and get their hands dirty. They live in the here-and-now, and place little importance on introspection or theory. The look at the facts of a situation, quickly decide what should be done, execute the action, and move on to the next thing.

ESTPs have an uncanny ability to perceive people's attitudes and motivations. They pick up on little cues which go completely unnoticed by most other types, such as facial expressions and stance. They're typically a couple of steps ahead of the person they're interacting with. ESTPs use this ability to get what they want out of a situation. Rules and laws are seen as guidelines for behavior, rather than mandates. If the ESTP has decided that something needs to be done, then their "do it and get on with it" attitude takes precedence over the rules. However, the ESTP tends to have their own strong belief in what's right and what's wrong, and will doggedly stick to their principles. The Rules of the Establishment may hold little value to the ESTP, but their own integrity mandates that they will not under any circumstances do something which they feel to be wrong.

ESTPs have a strong flair for drama and style. They're fast-moving, fast-talking people who have an appreciation for the finer things in life. They may be gamblers or spendthrifts. They're usually very good at story telling and improvising. They typically makes things up as they go along, rather than following a plan. They love to have fun, and are fun people to be around. They can sometimes be hurtful to others without being aware of it, as they generally do not know and may not care about the effect their words have on others. It's not that they don't care about people, it's that their decision-making process does not involve taking people's feelings into account. They make decisions based on facts and logic.

ESTP's least developed area is their intuitive side. They are impatient with theory, and see little use for it in their quest to "get things done". An ESTP will occasionally have strong intuitions which are often way off-base, but sometimes very lucid and positive. The ESTP does not trust their instincts, and is suspicious of other people's intuition as well.

The ESTP often has trouble in school, especially higher education which moves into realms where theory is more important. The ESTP gets bored with classes in which they feel they gain no useful material which can be used to get things done. The ESTP may be brilliantly intelligent, but school will be a difficult chore for them.

The ESTP needs to keep moving, and so does well in careers where he or she is not restricted or confined. ESTPs make extremely good salespersons. They will become stifled and unhappy dealing with routine chores. ESTPs have a natural abundance of energy and enthusiasm, which makes them natural entrepreneurs. They get very excited about things, and have the ability to motivate others to excitement and action. The can sell anyone on any idea. They are action-oriented, and make decisions quickly. All-in-all, they have extraordinary talents for getting things started. They are not usually so good at following through, and might leave those tasks to others. Mastering the art of following through is something which ESTPs should pay special attention to.

ESTPs are practical, observant, fun-loving, spontaneous risk-takers with an excellent ability to quickly improvise an innovative solution to a problem. They're enthusiastic and fun to be with, and are great motivators. If an ESTP recognizes their real talents and operates within those realms, they can accomplish truly exciting things.

Flüchtlinge

Last week, I visited my 93 years old grandmother in Germany and we talked politics and what's currently happening around the world. We obviously hit the topic of the current migration crisis affecting us in Europe. Suddenly, she said something which I think should be mentioned: 

"Towards the end of World War II, we had to take up more than 1 million refugees from East Prussia, and 80% of all houses were bombed and destroyed. Somehow we managed!"

My grandmother Grete (on the left) with her 3 sisters Helene, Anneliese and Else.

She told me about local government people entering each home deciding how many refugees each family must take. One could not refuse. Living rooms were vacated, everyone had to take on immigrants according to the size of the property. My grandmother told me that they (her parents and their 4 children) had to accommodate a family of 4. My great-grandmother, then shortly living in Kiel, had to give up her living room in her tiny flat accepting 2 women.

Refugees did not have to pay for their stay but were supposed to cook and take care for themselves as they, like the rest of the population, received food stamps. In certain rooms with no heating facilities, holes had to be drilled into the walls and ovens put up. 

This got me thinking. 

Of course, no state should enforce taking on refugees into private households, I don't even think it's legally possible. After all, we don't live in a dictatorship like my grandmother did during the war. All I want to say is, there is still so much we as a society can and should do if only we put in some effort. 

That's it, no further comment.

Why #piggate matters!

A scene from Midsomer Murder's Pudding Club episode, where "boy" possibly committed a criminal act at school:

Anthony Talbot: Boy comes in here to help, and what do you do? - Make a string of vile insinuations!

DCI Tom Barnaby: Making inquiries, Mr. Talbot, not insinuations.

Anthony Talbot: I hope you're not one of those chip on the soldier types who always takes the criminal's side, Barnaby.

DCI Tom Barnaby: No, I'm one of those 'let's do the job properly' types.

Recently, I watched this old episode on itv; it was about a posh school club, called the Pudding Club. The name of the club sounded as absurd as what went on in there; young dressed up upper classy school boys behaving like total twats performing bizarre rituals. It was like watching Brideshead Revisited; after a while I felt the same urge Sebastian Flyte must have felt when leaning into the window of Charles Ryder and, well, barfed it all out... Clearly, itv was overdoing it again, I thought. 

DCI Barnaby said "I'm one of those 'Let's do the job properly' types" and in that matter the copper is undoubtedly similar to our Prime Minister. The latter does his job so properly, that in last week's PMQs I nearly fell asleep whilst he answered every question properly and promptly. It was all a bit too slick. Our PM felt very safe and secure on his bench.

Politically, this whole summer was boring, and even though Europe is drowning in refugees and migrants, this didn't affect UK politics at all. Theresa May was concerned about building an even stronger fence around the Chunnel, but that was it. AND NOW THE DEAD PIG! This is even better than itv's Pudding Club episode, far better. There clearly is a God - "Thank you, Lord, I love you very much. Amen!" 

When I went to bed last Sunday night I looked at what Twitter and Instagram had to say. People were so creative around the topic "sex with pigs". I sat in my bed and laughed and laughed and laughed, for more than an hour, passing from tweet to tweet. At some stage my neighbours knocked asking if I were okay. "Of course I am okay, I said, Cameron face-f*cked a dead pig!"

What makes this whole incident so funny for us mere mortals? I am sure in some social circles people will shrug and retort "Yes, so what?". I guess it's not so much the fact that he actually performed this stupid and childish initiation rite for that Gaveston Club, it's the fact that he got caught and published. It's a mockery of the English class system. He, who is so slick and knows all the answers. He, who thinks can take on the whole of the EU. And he, who is so sure of himself, who won the last election. Yes he, he f*cked a dead pig's face. 

And please, whoever reads this, please do what I did, go to a butcher and look at a dead pig's head and think Cameron. And think procedure: Did he pull his trousers down or was he naked with simply a bow-tie on? Was he erect or maybe got aroused whilst at it? Did he just put his "private part" inside the mouth, or did he actually commit the sexual act of combined necrophilia and bestiality by moving in and out? How long did he do it? How many people were watching? Was it embarrassing for him? Did he have to "finish off"? The catalogue of questions is endless. 

What I was also thinking: I can't wait for Wednesday's PMQs (not knowing that there was a 3 week break. Bad planning, Lord Ashcroft!). What will the Queen say to him at his next audience with her? How will he react when someone in the House of Commons suddenly shouts "oink" when he appears? I imagined the next EU Summit, and colleagues of his suddenly stop talking when he arrives. When people smile at him, will he from now on always think they think swine? 

Animals, funny enough, stick with their associated humans. When I see Corgie I think Queen, when I see Rottweiler I think Camilla, and when I see pig I think Cameron. 

The BBC and Downing Street are giving us, the public, the silence treatment hoping it would all go away. The BBC commits some sort of an act of censorship, Downing Street is probably clueless and says nothing, hoping the public will forgive and forget. And what would one want to do anyway knowing that somewhere in this world is photographic evidence? Reality is, for us it's the gift that keeps on giving. Once someone is called a pig-f*cker, this someone will always be called a pig-f*cker. Nicknames also stick. 

If Downing Street banks on forgiveness, then they are probably right. Of course, we forgive him for doing it, it's a funny prank and he was a student after all. And we also forgive him for all his drug abuse because we wouldn't want to throw the first stone, would we?  We will forgive him for f*cking a dead pig's mouth as much as we forgave Prince Harry for playing a Nazi and having naked parties in Las Vegas. The UK is a liberal country with a sense of humour after all.

This whole #piggate affair is not about forgiveness, it is about forgetting, and that's the bummer the PM has to live with, because nobody on our planet Earth will ever forget. It is up to David Cameron now who needs to decide how much of a laughing stock he is and how much he is going to harm the dignity of his office with his past.

Only the future will tell what is going to happen. Let's wait and see. Having laughed so much, now it's time to get serious!

DCI Tom Barnaby: Smothered by a meat pudding, flattened by the roller and bashed about the head. Not necessarily in that order.

Sergeant Gavin Troy: Think it could be accidental, Sir?

DCI Tom Barnaby: No time for jokes, Troy.

Russian Roulette in the UK's political Landscape

"One must strive to have the majority of votes on one's side: So do not offend the idiots!"
Alexander S Puschkin, famous Russian author and poet in the early 19th century, said that once and I have the slight feeling not a lot has changed in the last 200 years. 

When looking at the current political landscape in the UK, this seems to be the leitmotif of many of our political leaders; or do they really believe in what they are saying? I don't think I'll ever find out. But what I want to do is, to have a look at those people who call themselves political leaders, the men and women who head up our parties in the UK. 

Sometimes I'm wondering if she can sleep or whether
 she secretly cries when thinking about her governments.

The Conservatives:
There is David Cameron, the Tory leader and current Prime Minister. I remember the last but one general election and prayed to God the LibDems would form a coalition government with Labour, but they didn't; they have chosen the Conservatives. I struggled. And I feared for the worst. Listening to Cameron back in the days gave me goose pimples, that kind one gets when thinking about Hitchcock's Norman Bates shortly before he pulls the shower curtain open. 

After so many years, one gets used to him, one's nerves are being numbed, I'd even say one feels like being captured by the Stockholm syndrome, that sometimes I feel I actually respect the PM for what he does. Till he opens his mouth and thinks in terms of "Rule Britannia". That always makes me cringe again, it overrules my Stockholm syndrome towards him.  

My deepest problem with Cameron is, deep inside I agree with him - one can't spend more than one has, hence after the heavy debt situation he inherited, I am all for austerity, and so is he, and his Chancellor. And it's all about strengthening the economy, because a strong economy means foreign and domestic demand, this means more jobs, higher taxes and less benefits; roughly said. As stupid as the notion of "northern power house" is, but an evenly spread out economy is of course better than a highly concentrated one in the southeast of England. So yes, go ahead, please!

And let's also face it, Cameron waved this whole gay rights issue through Parliament like no other (Conservative) party leader ever has. Wow, something no Labour leader has managed beforehand. That's impressive. But, and there is a big   B U T   looming in the air, and this is this whole ill-fated dealing with Europe and Scotland, privatising big chunks of the NHS, and basically his whole elitist Etonian personality which disturbs me beyond belief. If it weren't for the EU and Scotland, I'd probably be a fervent Tory, but I simply can't; not because of different point of views, but of this immense stupidity of risking the future of our country. He doesn't oppose the EU because of a deep inner conviction, but because back benchers forced him to and he thinks he needs to stand up against that political scum called UKIP. 

UKIP:
I don't want to write about them. They are scum, they remind me of Germany in the early 1930s, they use exactly the same techniques like the Nazis did - nationalism and fear, hatred and blaming minorities. They have no room in my blog. 

Labour:
Last week Jeremy Corbyn got elected with 60% of the Labour vote. His 3 other contestants had to share the remaining 40%. I would say this is a major triumph. Congratulations to him! 

Labour went through many changes in the last few decades. I still remember people like Neil Kinnock and the like, those that basically had to stand up against the Tories and Thatcher in particular, till Tony Blair appeared; and like Phoenix from the ashes, a New Labour rose to power. Well done him. I was a Blairite back then. And I have never ever thought I could be anything left of the centre. I then moved to England and in the late 90s I even joined. Well done me, I thought. But at a time when Blair started to go into bed with George Bush and play war lord, I gave up my Labour membership, as I felt I could not support a party and government that did such a thing. We now know it was the most stupid decision ever made by that former Labour government. Many lives were lost, for basically nothing. And the imbalance created back then was the breeding ground for the problems we are facing today, with ISIS and the lot. 

Tony Blair was the role reversal of Dorian Gray. Pictures of his young self were still there, but he grew ugly over the years; not necessarily physically but politically. After he finally gave up, Gordon Brown faced the same fate as John Major did - both were dwarfed by their omnipotent predecessors. Miliband didn't get Labour back to speed. Now let's see what Corbyn will be able to do.

What strikes me the most about Jeremy Corbyn, he is so adorably anti-establishment. For my taste, politically he is slightly too much on the left, but I love the fact that he has backbone enough to (hopefully) remain the way he is and not change and become too politically elitist. I hope he doesn't kneel before the Queen, I hope he doesn't sing the national anthem if he doesn't feel like it, and I hope he doesn't stop seeing his voters in favour of representative duties for which we clearly have the royal family; the latter have nothing else to do in their 'job description'. The press attacks him left, right and centre about the way he behaves, but let me make this public now: The more the press rattles against Jeremy Corbyn for being anti-establishment and the more he remains the way he is, the more trust and faith I will have in him. Jeremy Corbyn has deserved a chance for success, let's give it to him! 

SNP:
The SNP is a party that was founded years ago with only one purpose and target in mind - to break off the UK and gain Scottish independence. And the peak of it was last year's referendum which was also their biggest defeat so far - they lost the vote 45% vs 55%. And let me say this, I am truly glad they did, as I would not want to live in a dwarfed England. Scotland enriches the UK beyond belief. After the referendum was over I was so relieved not having to listen to Alex Salmond anymore. His more or less daily infiltrations were too much to bear. He handed over to Nicola Sturgeon. 

My first reaction to her was rather negative, as it seemed to me she only chewed on stuff Alex Salmond already spat out. With him gone, leaving her the position as First Minister, she probably freed herself and was able to create her own image she wanted to be portrayed of. And blimey, did she do well! What I like the most about her is her "what you see is what you get" attitude. She is straight forward, appears open and honest and calls things by their names. One doesn't get the "Westminster bla" from her. Very refreshing. 

And then they triumphantly conquered the House of Commons in the last general election. OMG! Wouldn't Nicola Sturgeon be the best Prime Minister ever? Well, she wouldn't, because we ought not to forget, deep inside the SNP want independence. She would basically be like a vampire from the Twilight Series - officially feeding from bottled blood, but there is always this intrinsic need for the proper stuff, independence in this matter!

LibDems:
I have always been liberal because I feel tolerance is a virtue, and this is something I subsume in liberalism - live and let live. This is also a very Christian and Humanitarian way of looking at life. Immanuel Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' is nothing else but Jesus Christ's 'Love thy neighbour'. I thought the LibDems under Nick Clegg came pretty much close to this. I was glad when the LibDems came into power in 2010. 

The LibDems in the UK appear every 50 years or so in government and have just come out of such a vital part of their existence. They have never been overly visible and de facto left the country as a two party state - Labour and Conservatives. In the last coalition government I think they did good work; they kept the Tories at bay and didn't allow them to go overboard with Europe and certain other issues. I always liked Nick Clegg, for me he was the most trustworthy of all cabinet ministers, the most straight forward. Similar to Nicola Sturgeon he seemed to be a "what you see is what you get" person, a trait I highly appreciate. 

Even though they managed to manage the Tories, in the end they were eaten alive by them. They had the chance of a lifetime to gain a profile and they wasted it utterly. Whatever the government did was recognised as Tory gain; publicly, the LibDems were just some junior partners that got to eat the left-overs the seniors threw at them. In other words, they were too busy with themselves and in their situation that they probably never looked forward to a time after the coalition. They got punished badly, extremely badly, and rightly so, as I am afraid to say. 

The biggest disaster then was when Nick Clegg resigned. The only figurehead left actually left the political scene. He got a successor, his name is Tim Farron, but other than him being an evangelical Christian I have not heard anything from the party ever since. Evangelicals and tolerance has always been a contradiction in terms. It would be similar to a Thatcherite being member of a trade union. That's it, nothing else can be said about the LibDems - they simply vanished. 

Choices over Choices:
So where does this leave me with my choice of party I should go for, maybe even join? Sometimes I am glad I am not yet a British citizen as I don't have to think too much about who to vote for at a general election. But still, who would I favour? 

I think currently the decision making process it is more like "who is the least evil of all of them?" and I'd have to make a decision based on negatives. That's not what I want. I want to make a choice grounded on positives - "who is the best?" I am afraid to say, I can't do this right now.

In the ideal world I would wish the following to happen:
- I wish the Tories would give up their stupid Rule Britannia Attitude and feel more European taking on a leading role in shaping the EU and be part of it rather than against it.
- I wish UKIP would eradicate itself.
- I wish Labour would give Corbyn a chance and stand closely behind him, and that Corbyn moves a bit more towards the centre without giving up his ideals.
- I wish the SNP would feel more British, accept the vote, and stop splitting Scotland into two camps of Yes and No. 
- I wish Nick Clegg would return to lead up the LibDems, take this whole experience as a 'lesson learned' exercise and get the party back into shape. 

There are a few more years till the next general election. Maybe by then I will be British and have a 'positive choice' from all the parties offering to make our lives better ones and lead us into a prosperous future! Of course only the future will tell. 

PS: This morning, after I have finished my Tory part, I read about #piggate. I must admit, I haven't laughed so hard for a very long time. One thing is for sure, politics in the UK is and will never be boring! I can't wait for PMQ tomorrow. 

St Aidan, a very saintly leader and entrepreneur!

"Oh Master, make me chaste, but not yet!"
St. Augustine

Recently, I went to my annual pilgrimage; this year to the Island of Iona, one of Scotland's Hebrides' islands. It's a very important religious location in Britain since it is one of the birth places of Celtic-Irish Christianity. It is a form of Christianity that came to England from the north via Ireland and Scotland and more or less died out after the arrival of the Roman form entering via Kent and the English south. St Augustine, the one who wants to have a postponed chastity, is partly responsible for this dominance of Romanism on the British Isles as his religious believes were centre-stage during the famous Synod of Whitby (664 AD). Anyway, that's just some background knowledge. 

Let's get back to my pilgrimage to Iona. Below is a photo which I took upon arrival by ferry. The famous abbey is on the right. The island is pretty small, only a few hundred people live there, if that many at all. 

This pilgrimage was pretty standard in the way it was put together. The theme was Iona and its saints; namely St Columba and to a lesser degree St Aidan. In the addresses by the local vicar we heard about St Mary on day 1, St Columba on day 2 and finally St Aidan on day 3. 

We all know about St Mary, mother of Jesus; and whatever the priest said was okay but didn't rock my boat overly much. Maybe because I am a Lutheran at heart and never really warmed up to her. 

And good old St Columba, well, he was an Irish nobleman and either had to escape from Ireland or went voluntarily after some lost battle, if I remember well. Once he arrived on Iona he built a predecessor of this abbey we can see today and founded the monastery.

The story of St Columba was a bit like the one of Mary. No, he wasn't any related to Jesus, but his life story didn't butter my muffin overly much. I think he has probably chosen the most beautiful spot on God's Earth (and I am saying this because I have not felt any raindrop during my stay and it was still late summer). It was good to be on his island and see where he lived and built his monastery. It's a divine and truly sacred place and I felt uplifted throughout my stay. 

On day 3 we listened to the story of St Aidan. He was a brethren on Iona and also deeply rooted in Celtic christianity. 

One day, he sat in an assembly of the monastery and got told about King Oswald of Northumbria (or maybe the king was on Iona himself, I don't remember). Oswald was a deeply Christian king and needed help in Christianising his heathen people. All monks were a bit "shy" to agree and come over and help, but Aiden, one of the youngest brethren, stood up and told them all off declaring publicly he will do it. And he set out and walked all the way to Northumbria determined to baptise them all. He did. He managed. He founded Lindisfarne, a major British mystical pilgrimage site, situated on an island (only at high tide though) between Edinburgh and Newcastle, at the English east coast. 

(Rowan Lewgalon painted this image of St Aidan. A tad different to the usual saint pictures)

And that's the story of St Aidan, the short blog version of it anyway. Please feel free to wikipedia him. 

At the end of the pilgrimage we should give feedback as to what got stuck in our minds from our time on Iona or affected us emotionally the most; and funny enough, apart from the beauty of nature, with me it was the story of St Aidan. The sheer fact that he stood up in front of his peers and said in a very Obama-style manner "Yes, I can do it!" and then did it by throwing himself into the unknown of the 7th century and was successful, got me extremely motivated. He did it because he firmly believed in something, he possessed conviction that it would be the right thing to do. These are such leadership qualities that earn my fullest and deepest respect. Chapeau! 

I think for me this means a couple of things in terms of to dos: 
1. I want to know more about St Aidan
2. I want to travel to Lindisfarne at some stage and see and feel the place
3. I want to use the story of St Aidan in my coaching sessions with my clients when I talk about mission, vision and conviction and about setting targets.

My trip to Iona was a full success. It is a most inspiring little island in the Atlantic Ocean and a very godly place. I can only recommend to anyone to visit once in one's life. On my other blog I wrote three entries about my trip to Iona - this one, that one, and that one and sorry, the pictures in "that one" entry are the same as on here. 

The Importance of being ... Earnest?

“Jack? . . . No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations . . . I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest.” 
― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

In my endeavour to find out whether the Bible can be used as management handbook, I recently came across a mug at the back of my cupboard which I took from the company I worked for many many years ago. I remember they changed their logos and corporate identity constantly; recently even their name from Proudfoot Consulting to Alexander Proudfoot. It was a very turbulent time back then and probably still is. 

My mind wandered off to one of my last entries on here, the SALT one, where I wrote about Abram who later became Abraham and Sarai, his sister and wife, the future Sarah. They did so after they have received the call from God; a new direction meant a new start with a new name, whether it concerns consulting companies or Old Testament saints. 

Let me look at other religious figures that have undertaken a name change: The most prominent one is St Paul, who changed from Saul after his epiphany on the way to Damaskus. We are all glad he did that, as St Saul would have been just too awful to pronounce. Unlike with modern corporate name changes, this one was probably more coincidental. Well, having said that, since this name change came by divine intervention, I guess, no, I'm sure, God thought about "pronounceability" of one of his most important apostle's names. It was a major godly rebranding exercise that worked. Corporate Identity by divine intervention, I like that!

El Greco's version of St Paul

And then there are other religious leaders like the popes who usually change their names when taking up their office. The most interesting one is our current pope. He named himself after St Francis of Assisi who dedicated his life to God by living an impoverished and modest life. Similarly, Pope Francis refused to move into the papal palace and got rid of many other of those privileges his position would offer. Of course by doing so, he sets a precedence for his papal successors. I bet, the future world will see many popes bearing his name, just to jump on his bandwagon of papal modesty and humility. The power of names!

There is a troublesome English name; and that's Charles. It is not so troublesome for most men bearing that name, but for the current Prince of Wales it most certainly is, or at least seems to be. He wants to turn into yet another George when succeeding to the throne. There have been 2 Charleses on the English throne - the first one was beheaded in 1649 and the second one was once described by the 2nd Earl of Rochester as

"Restless he rolls from whore to whore 

A merry monarch, scandalous and poor."

Alright, I see the point why Prince Charles doesn't think too highly of his name as his "job title" of being King Charles III. But being yet another George? Seriously? 

Rupert Everett as Charles I. Irresistible, even seconds before his film death.

"from whore to whore"

King Charles III?

Other than name changes, there are name additions people gave themselves, probably a pre-stage to having or bearing a title. Back in the times of early Christianity, when the religion was still illegal in Rome, Christians called themselves "com pane", which means "with bread" and classifies us Christians as the ones who consume bread, like Christ and his disciples did at the Last Supper in the Upper Room in Jerusalem shortly before his death on the cross. One doesn't have to study etymology in order to see that "com pane" is the predecessor of our "companion".

Elizabeth I called herself "The Virgin Queen" after her very own epiphany moment and many others did similar things. Name changes work. And the Bible was the first book ever to demonstrate this to us. In this case I would say that very book of books can give us all a lecture in marketing, rebranding and changing any corporate identity. Well done! 

I started my blog entry with Oscar Wilde's Importance of being Earnest and would want to finish it with another quote from that book: 

“I'll bet you anything you like that half an hour after they have met, they will be calling each other sister. Women only do that when they have called each other a lot of other things first.” 
― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

Thoughts of an exiled German about the forthcoming EU referendum in the UK

I received an e-mail from the Parliamentary Outreach Service with an invitation to voice my views on the UK and its EU membership. It reads like this:

The Foreign Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry into the costs and benefits of EU membership for the UK's foreign policy.

Although foreign policy remains primarily a matter for national governments in the European Union, leaving the EU could have significant implications for the UK’s alliances and strategic partnerships, standing in other international organisations, soft power and national security.

This inquiry will help inform public debate in advance of the upcoming referendum on EU membership.

The Committee is interested in receiving evidence on topics including:

·         whether and in what ways EU membership helps or hinders the UK in achieving its foreign policy goals

·         how the UK's role on the global stage might change if it votes to leave the EU

There is not overly much one can do in a representative democracy other than voting and petitioning, so I think I need to voice my views, since as German, who has lived in the UK for nearly 20 years, I am not allowed to vote in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. I believe this is questionable, because a negative vote would affect me as European citizen in this country and my right of residency under the EU Treaty. Strangely enough, if I had been Irish or Cypriot I’d have been able to vote. This seems unjust.

It is difficult to comment on topic 1 as it appears pretty unclear to me (and probably everyone who reads this) what the UK’s foreign policy goals are. One can try and think about the other topic, the what-ifs in case of the UK leaving the EU.

Apparently, it was Churchill, de Gaulle and Adenauer who sat together after WW2 and decided to start up with this European dream of never having war again; and the European Community was founded. A lot has happened after that and it seems, the UK has withdrawn its involvement from the EU and left it all to Germany and France, which I think is a real shame, as the UK could play such a pivotal role; it’s one of Europe’s strongest economies and biggest countries after all! 70 years after the end of WW2 the 3 forefathers of this modern Europe were right – we have had peace on EU grounds ever since.

I truly believe in the principle of subsidiarity – where each political institution decides what’s best for its citizens and where it has an expertise when it comes to decision-making. Say, why should Austria decide on fishing issues in the North Sea and why should Ireland have its say in the issue of Alpine erosion, etc. There are many cases where the EU probably decided too much; the cucumber springs to mind. But there are also many cases where I truly believe the EU should be “sticking together” far more as one big entity. This is particularly the case in a world that is dominated by big blocks of powers – the US, Russia, China, the Middle East – and emerging new powers, such as Brazil and India. And when looking at the map, Europe is right in the middle of all of them.

Sometimes I feel the UK never got over the fact that it lost the Empire; and its replacement - the Commonwealth - is more like a plaything for the Queen rather than a serious political institution. Having lost the Empire, Britain is where it was in Stuart dynasty times – a European island; politically powerful, culturally tenacious, economically strong, but otherwise, on the big scheme of world issues, of medium significance. The Victorian “Rule Britannia” doesn’t exist anymore.

Scotland recently voted to stay within the UK. It was a narrow result and with the SNP rising in influence (it currently has more or less ALL Scottish seats in Westminster) the scare of another Scottish independence vote is not over, just postponed. And I bet my left arm, with the UK leaving the EU (instigated by the majority English vote) Scotland’s SNP will rise up again to the occasion and leave the UK; and rightly so! England alone (Wales and NI are too unimportant) would be even more dwarfed than it already post-imperially is. It would be size of Tudor England.

What I am missing in the political debate in England (as much as I miss it abroad these days) is celebrating the advantages of being in the EU. The only thing one hears is negativity – red tape in Brussels (as if there were none in Westminster), the financial cost of membership (as if there weren’t any benefits), over-regulations (cucumbers and stuff), mass immigration (Romanians are all criminals), undemocratic legitimization of EU institutions (as if the UK with its voting system were any more democratic and egalitarian), and the rule of European bureaucrats over English lands. Sure, the EU needs reform, and I’d even say it needs big and deep reforms, but it’s not all bad what comes from there and I would wish a bit more of an objective public debate about it.

The question is also, in case the UK opts for leaving the EU, do we want to become like Norway or Switzerland? In the end, when wanting to trade with the EU, and everyone does, they have to adapt to any regulations coming from Brussels. That’s the price they pay for their “independence”. Is that really where the UK wants to head towards? I simply wish our country would be a stronger player in the EU, a decision maker; it should take on a more active role and actually celebrate being European AND British AND English OR Scottish OR Welsh OR Irish. The UK is so diverse in itself, what’s wrong with embracing one more identity, a European one, especially in times where the world goes more and more global?

In many European countries there are nationalistic movements away from Brussels and the EU – e. g. the AfD in Germany, Le Front National in France, and of course UKIP in our country, plus a few Tory backbenchers. Rather than going into defense mode by announcing a referendum, only to appease backbenchers and counter-attack UKIP, I would have wished for the government to demonstrate proper leadership, take on an active role in Europe and become the driving force to make the EU an institution that is more democratic, less bureaucratic and more visible to its citizens. It’s the 21^st century and in the UK and elsewhere we need to think globally which for us Europeans means Europe. It’s not such a bad thing after all, let’s dare!

Triggering Epiphanies

Have you ever had those moments when you suddenly and completely out of the blue decided something which has had a long-lasting impact, which has changed your life? Those are "epiphany moments". One has to cherish them, as they don't come often in life, but once they are there, we need to grasp them and just go for whatever there is to do! Epiphanies should always result in actions. That's why coaches and consultants like me like them so much. 

There is always a way out!

I have had a few in my life, they tend to appear very sporadically, unexpectedly, some are stronger, some are weaker, and of course, the stronger the better. They can reach levels of excitement to an orgasmic scale.

I had one recently:

It happened on 30 June 2015: I got up, had a coffee, decided to go to the local gym and sign up for membership, went to my wardrobe, packed a bag, went down the hill to the new local health and leisure centre, signed up without having seen what the place looks like, and started to exercise. I did it as if I had been remote controlled. I walked down the hill like a zombie that has smelled fresh human flesh.

Me on day 1! 

I am still amazed about it, as for the last 15 years I avoided the gym and any kind of physical exhaustion like the plague. Suddenly this! Now, 4 weeks after, I am quite happy about it and I like going there. I don't overdo it, I don't think I ever will; looking like Arnold has never been on my to do list, but a little bit of exercise is actually quite nice. 

Some of those epiphanies can be triggered, some probably come completely out of the blue. It must be similar to dreams; many stem from activities and occurrences that took place in our active lives, others come from deep within our subconsciousness. 

Epiphany moments in a business context are rare. I can imagine entrepreneurs probably have them when coming up with an idea and then take action. The role of a coach is to pave the way for them to happen. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's like with dreams, you can't force anyone to dream something specific. 

Epiphany in Bulgaria, where on 6 January every year men throw themselves into ice-cold water to fetch a cross that has been thrown in by the local priest. My coaching method isn't that drastic...  ;-) 

I have an example where I managed to trigger such an epiphany moment: 

Imagine a factory, break time for the workers is at 11:00 and there is no canteen on site, just a vending machine with sandwiches, chocolates, and the like; and then there is this little van from a local bakery that drives from factory to factory selling warm food, no meals, just warm sandwiches and rolls. For our German speakers, they sold Leberkässemmeln, but I am refraining from explaining this in English. 

Anyway, whenever I walked around the shop floor I heard a siren at 10:15 and most workers left their work place and went to that van to buy their "Leberkässemmeln". Those were kept in aluminium foil to keep them warm in order to bridge over till 11:00. What happened though, in most cases, break started at 10:15 because people wanted to eat their rolls straight away. Production figures plummeted daily during that hour. 

I went to the plant manager and just enquired about that sandwich van and he proudly told me about managing to finally have the van stop at 3 different locations inside the factory so that his workers would not have to leave their work place too early in order to walk all the way to the main gate where the van used to stop in order to be able to buy their "well deserved rolls". 

One morning after sitting over the project goals, which was to raise output by a certain percentage and we were far from the target line, I said to him a little bit after 10:00, "I need a break, why don't we take a stroll to the coffee machine in the factory and I get us a coffee...?". We went and of course at 10:20 the factory was empty, as everyone was queuing up at the van outside. I said, "It must be break time, nobody is here anymore, the machines are all switched off..."

The sandwich van does not exist anymore and break time starts at 11:00 again. We discussed this issue with the workers' council and came up with a good solution. The plant manager told me after a while: "Roland, I was so embarrassed when you showed me what happened down there without rubbing it in. It was the moment when I knew we really needed to sort the business out and start pushing mountains". 

We did and managed the turnaround and hit the target line. Happy Epiphany! 

That's an epiphany gone wrong!