Today was the day I had been waiting for. I was finally offered a job. To get to this point from being first advised that my earlier job was under threat of redundancy has taken five-and-a-half months, something in excess of 120 job applications, and fifteen (or fourteen, or sixteen, depending on how you count them) interviews. This is the “burgeoning economy” that politicians and commentators boast that we are now living in.
Of course, there are special circumstances relating to my situation. I have a somewhat specialist job. (IT software tester.) I am based outside That London. I have a somewhat unusual career path – I started doing software testing before the main industry qualification was invented, my test automation experience is rather limited and also at least ten years out of date, and (despite the practice now being illegal) I am considered way too old by too many people to even consider doing anything much more complex than stacking shelves in a supermarket or projecting an air of Experience and Knowledge About Sheds in some home improvement DIY superstore. But I’m hardly unique.
The venture capitalist owners of my former employer decided that they needed to increase the amount of profit they were making out of the exercise. Someone identified a software company that they might acquire which would increase the asset base of the company as a whole, and enable to company to cut most of its in-house IT provision. And so it came to pass that my job as a tester was declared to be “an unaffordable luxury”. This came back to bite them, of course. The company was required to relocate because the site that we occupied was marked for redevelopment. They took up brand new offices in the city centre, and announced this widely online and in social media. “Click here for more details of our stunning new offices!” it said
Guess what. The link didn’t work. The Germans have a word for the way I felt about that. Look up Schadenfreude.
Of course, there was a process to be gone through. The company suggested that they would look to see if there were any other equivalent jobs that those of us under threat of redundancy could do. I said to myself, “Well, all they will have on file will be my testing CV. That doesn’t tell the whole story.” So I assembled an addendum to my CV, detailing the things I’d done that weren’t on the main resume. And I sent it to the director who was managing the redundancy process, saying “I’d hazard to suggest that I have skills that you know nothing about, and which I suspect no-one else in the company has.” His response was “I’ll read it, but you should understand that we are not in the business of creating jobs for people.” Then he opened the document, and saw, on the first page, this:
Five years’ experience in Press Office work for a high-profile Government Department at headquarters level
Dealing with press enquiries
Overseeing production and distribution of publications, press notices and Stock Exchange announcements, sometimes at short notice
Drafting press notices
Drafting responses to enquiries from MPs
Organising press conferences, seminars and high-level meetings
Organising media interviews, briefing broadcast media and print journalists
Received training in media interviewing technique
Organising Ministerial visits for UK and overseas government representatives
Proof-reading and fact-checking reports, press notices and speeches for senior staff (up to CEO level)
Preparing briefing for senior staff (up to CEO level) on:
The French water industry
The German water industry
Progress of legislation through Parliament
Reporting on Committee stages of legislation
Briefing senior staff (Chairman and CEO) for appearance before the Public Accounts Committee.
His face in the next meeting he attended was a picture. It may not have helped me secure any sort of position in the company, but it sure as hell made me feel better about the process; and that director avoided me for the rest of the time I was there. Finally he understood the amount of contempt I held him in. He had, after all, made a point of loudly dismissing all the testing work I’d done in the previous two years without understanding any of it. I felt I was justified in reducing him to the status of an insect.
I had some indication of the uphill struggle I was facing from the outset. My first application was to a company who ran a household services comparison website. Pretty quickly, they called me in for interview. Their business model was not dissimilar from the company I was working for, so I was able to do some serious thinking about their business, their software fit and the sort of areas where they might expand it. I went in and did what I felt was a pretty good interview.
They turned down my application because they said I was a “poor cultural fit for the role and the office”. Well, as far as I could see, it was possibly the most mono-cultural office I’d set foot in for more than twenty years. In fact, I could only see one area where I did not match the cultural profile of the rest of the office, and that was age – which is, as I said, illegal now (though like any other sort of workplace discrimination, the problem is proving it. Most people aren’t so stupid as to actually admit to such a thing in writing).
In the course of the 120+ job applications after that, and the 15 interviews, I never came across anything quite so blatant; mostly, those who didn’t value my experience were more polite. There were instances where my failure to progress was more understandable; I wasn’t generally applying for Test Manager roles, but occasionally one would come up which was so worded as to make me think I might have a chance. After all, I was almost a de facto Test Manager in my previous role, and indeed had been referred to as ‘Test Lead’ by colleagues. So for a company without well-defined testing protocols, I might be an attractive proposition. But the one I went to – after initial screening by the agency, I would add, and then a paper sift by the company – turned out to be anything but unorganised. Their IT manager was one of a breed of IT guys I’d come across before – he very much reminded me of the guy who headhunted me into Quality Assurance back in Ofwat; frighteningly intelligent, highly competent and never in the same place for much more than five minutes. I would have enjoyed working with him, but it was very clear almost from the outset that the company knew what they wanted and it was way outside my comfort zone. Chalk that one down to experience.
Perhaps the oddest experience I had was with a specialist software house who had a product along the same lines as the company I’d worked for. I went to and survived first interview, and I was invited to a second interview with the MD/owner, Business Director and Head of IT. For this I had to make a presentation as well as do the usual interview stuff. Again, I went in well clued up on the company, its business, its products and its sector. I did a pretty good interview. Afterwards, I spoke to the agency, and they said “Well, there was you and one other person got through to this stage – and they’ve turned the other person down because they said your technical knowledge was better.” But then, when I asked the obvious question, their rather enigmatic answer was “Robert’s given us a lot to think about.”
And think about it they did. For four days. Their eventual answer was “We don’t think Robert’s a team player”, which was a mystery to both me and the agency, as I’d talked at length about how much I’d worked with different teams, both co-located and offshore, how much I’d enjoyed working with some of thee teams and had good results from direct, one-on-one relationships with other developers. A friend of mine listened to this, and then said “You frightened them.” They re-advertised, filled the post, and then had to re-advertise again when the appointee decided that the travelling was not to their taste. And I was contacted twice for each re-advertisement to see if I was interested…
All the way through this process, I was hoarding my pennies, because I was hoping to avoid any contact with the benefits system. The last time I signed unemployed with the DWP, back in 2012, I hadn’t qualified for benefits because I’d been self-employed in the relevant contributions year, and because my small Civil Service pension exceeded the benefits payable. But now I have rent to pay, and I’d been in proper employment for two years, so I thought I would give it a try again.
I was appalled at what I found. The DWP now require all new benefits claimants to sign daily for the first eight weeks of the claim. 35 years ago, when I worked for the DWP’s predecessor Department, daily signing was an indicator that you were suspected of fraud – specifically, “working whilst in receipt”. Daily signing forced the claimant to turn up at the office at a particular time, disrupting a working day and allowing Special Investigation Officers to acquire their subjects and follow them. But now, this appears to be done specifically to get claimants into a mid-set of “looking for work” and open them to new and exciting job opportunities. Except that I was already in a “looking for work” mind-set (remember 120+ applications?), and the job opportunities they kept trying to point me (and everyone else) towards were warehouse, retail or caring jobs. They even offered me work experience in the Job Centre itself! As if I had no idea how a modern office operates..
Staff attitudes initially set me in mind of the Milgram Experiment, the experiment where members of the public were instructed to deliver electric shocks of ever-increasing voltage to an unseen test subject if they answered a question incorrectly; and because the instructions were delivered by an authority figure, the public complied up to lethal voltages and beyond. But after the first week, the Job Centre staff seemed to calm down, especially as many of us in my Job Club group were a bit older and radiated a certain air of “seem this before”. And to be fair, after a fortnight the staff themselves were confiding that they were under a whip from their management to promote certain jobs and activities. But the staff still didn’t seem to have any idea how professional or specialist recruitment operates. I actually missed a job opportunity where an agency rang up whilst I was signing on to try to arrange a telephone interview with an employer that afternoon. By the time I got back home, took the call and phoned back, the employer had filled all the interview slots they wanted and weren’t re-opening them for anyone.
The DWP staff certainly pushed the idea that I should apply for any suitable job. But how is that going to work? My CV shows a track record of nearly twenty years’ software testing; most office roles nowadays have specialist skills that employers are looking for. An employer is not going to want someone who may well only stay in a job for a few weeks if it’s clear from their CV that their expertise lies in another area; and even if they did appoint, can you imagine an Amazon warehouse shift supervisor being happy with the odd member of staff taking time out to answer employment agency calls during the day?
With all that in mind, and once I found again that I wouldn’t qualify for any benefit, I signed myself off, reasoning that I could do far better at finding work than the Job Centre. Incidentally, you now need two years’ contributions to get six months of contributions-related Job Seekers’ Allowance – back in the times I knew it was one year’s contributions got you one year’s Unemployment benefit. And UB was paid at a higher rate than Supplementary Benefit, whereas the rates of JSA are the same whether it’s based on contributions or paid out of taxation.
Meanwhile, Housing Benefit, paid by the local council (I remember converting all our office’s live case load to Housing Benefit when it was first introduced in the early 1980s) is based on the same numbers as income-related JSA; it then assumes that 65% of your income is available to meet your rent, and you get the difference between that and the local upper rent limit – an average of appropriate rents in your area. How you are supposed to fund your job search in this process is a bit beyond me. To look for work nowadays, you need electricity to run your computer, a broadband account so you can search the web, get job alerts and upload your CV, and you also need to be able to travel. My job search was based on a 50-mile radius of Leicester, being close to the M1 as I am; I applied for jobs as far afield as Barton-on-Humber in the north, Milton Keynes in the south, Stafford in the west and Peterborough in the east. In the end, I’ve ended up with a job in Coventry, which is perhaps 40 minutes away (once I get my car sorted and I can drive it faster than 40 mph without a nasty shimmy developing, and once the A46/A45 flyunder junction at Tollbar End opens, due sometime before Christmas).
So: a new chapter beckons. In 2013-14, it took me from the end of September to the beginning of the following July to find work. Indeed, I actually didn’t get an invitation to interview until January ’14 that time. This time round, I started looking at the beginning of June, had my first interview almost immediately, and I start work towards the end of November – a bit quicker, but just as worrying. And in this case, it was worry brought about because of blind decisions made by men in suits who were thinking about shareholder value and their own personal enrichment. These attitudes seem to be widespread in the business and governmental world nowadays. And people wonder why electorates seem willing to deliver a bloody nose to the status quo. But my take on that will have to wait for another day.
We really don’t have much idea about transport planning in this country. I’m currently looking for work. I live four miles outside Leicester. 300 yards away, there’s a railway which carries aggregates from quarries to all parts of the country. The railway runs from Leicester to Burton-on-Trent. It lost its passenger service in 1967, but for years people have been trying to get it re-opened. The County Council, which deals with transport planning, takes the attitude of “We’re fed up of telling people there’s no demand for such a service.”
I do have a bus that runs from outside my front door into Leicester. But to connect to anywhere else by transferring to rail, I have a twenty-minute walk across town.
I have an interview for a job in Nottingham on Monday. At the moment, my car is playing up, so much so that I’m reluctant to go to this interview in it. (Motorway speeds are a problem.) I can get to the interview by public transport – drive into Leicester, get the train, 30 minutes or less to Nottingham, then a cross-platform change to the tram; I get off at the first stop and the interview venue is eight minutes away on foot. That’s fine. But if I get the job, I’d actually be working in a different building that isn’t accessible by public transport in the same way. And in any case, a £15 return fare off-peak for an interview in the middle of the day is one thing; the extra cost for peak-time fares, plus the timings, would make it more problematical for a commute.
I’m looking for work in a wide radius from Leicester, but it’s all based on the motorway network. Some places where I’m entertaining jobs can only be accessed by public transport with one or two changes. Others – say, Northampton or Milton Keynes – which are just on the hour away by car have much more convoluted journeys by rail because a number of rail links were closed in the Beeching era. And because IT jobs are based around attracting talent from a wide catchment area, IT companies aren’t in town centres but are usually on trading estates on the edge of towns, convenient to motorways and trunk roads. So even if I could get by train from Leicester to, say, Northampton (where I had an interview the other week), I’d still then have to get from the centre of town out to the trading estate – twenty minutes at least on a bus, if one exists, and more than likely a walk at each end of the journey because the stops aren’t convenient.
Municipal public transport was done away with by a previous Conservative government because they believed that it was not the job of councils to provide transport. Well, I disagree. It is the job of councils to facilitate and support businesses, and that must include some means of getting employees to work. This is what makes the country work. Is that not as important as defending the country against external threats?
I’m not advocating a return to nineteenth-century patterns of travel and transport. We have moved beyond that. But when you look at a successful economy – say, Germany, or Switzerland – and consider that it has a public transport system which has only started pruning some less economical routes in recent years through monetarist pressure from outside the country, the contrast could not be plainer. In such countries, transport interchanges actually allow interchange instead of there being a twenty minute walk from one to the other. Timetables are organised around virtually allowing ‘turn up and walk on board’ services for most local services. And interchangeable ticketing is the norm. (We have made some progress in that direction – my rail fare for Monday includes the tram fare – but it is not enough, especially when the rail system alone has a pricing and ticketing structure which verges on lunacy.)
Some people would object to the level of taxation that would be required to subsidise a more rationally-planned transport system. They would argue that they shouldn’t pay taxes for something they do not personally use. Well, I disagree. When I worked in central Birmingham., I ended up commuting by car because the railway system was overpriced and did not offer me convenient journeys. I used to leave work at 6pm to try to avoid the worst of the congestion; and even then, the first three miles or so out of the city centre were stop-start queuing. I would sit in that queue and think “How much worse would this be if everyone who is now on a train was also in a car, or on a bus?” And knowing how many people used rail services, the answer was “At least twice as bad.”
My car is thirteen years old, it is showing signs of body rot and it has a smoking habit that verges on the anti-social. I shall soon need to replace it (once I have a job). Which will mean taking out a loan (assuming I can get one). Would a rational, flexible public transport system increase my taxes by £2400 a year? Because that’s the likely cost of a loan in interest and repayments (back-of-envelope calculations, of course). The shift from public to private transport also meant a change in economic activity from the large-scale (major contracts for infrastructure and the corporate provision of vehicle fleets) to the smaller scale (the car as a big-ticket consumer purchase). Either way, I end up paying. Of course, the car gives me flexibility. Which is fine until suddenly, I don’t have it, either temporarily or in the longer term. If my car were to suddenly expire, instead of looking for work in a fifty-mile radius of Leicester, I’d be effectively restricted to Leicester city centre, and possibly Derby and Nottingham city centres (Nottingham would give me slightly more leeway because of their tram system, but not much).
(I did a two-week contract last month for a company in South Wigston. It was only twenty minutes away by car, skirting the edge of the Leicester city area. I could get to it by bus, but it would be seventy minutes each way by public transport as I would have to go into the city centre on one bus and then go out to site on another.)
Multiply this effect across the workforce, and suddenly you are back to a Victorian model of people living close to where they work – in some respects a good thing, say for the environment – but also suffering a closing down of the horizons. You are back to expecting people to mould their lives around their work, and knowing their place.
There are no easy answers to any of this. But the decision to change from public to private transport – and worse still, to tear up the infrastructure so that it couldn’t be reinstated if conditions or traffic patterns changed in future – must count as one of the major crimes against working people of the 20th century.
So: how has life been treating me recently? Not that well, it turns out.
One Friday towards the end of June, I was chatting with our head of IT. He’d just come out of a fairly long meeting with a new Board member. “Every time I think it can’t get any worse,” he said, “it does.”
So I went home and dusted off the CV that weekend.
Which was a good move. The next week, that same Board member attended a team meeting and told us that as the company hadn’t been making enough profit for its venture capitalist owners, there would be more redundancies. A week later, I was being pulled into a meeting with HR to be told that I was at risk of redundancy. The company was having to cut back on some functions that fell into the “nice to have but not essential” category, and testing software before release was part of that. What could possibly go wrong?
The intention was to buy a software company that produced a range of off-the-shelf solutions that could meet all the company’s future needs. Again,. what could go wrong? After all, as all IT professionals know, when you buy off-the-shelf packages, they always stand up on your own servers perfectly first time, interface seamlessly with your heritage applications, and are completely compatible with whatever data schema your existing records have been formatted to. Who needs testers?
There was some mention made of the possibilities for redeployment elsewhere in the company. It was at this point that I decided that I was going to take some measure of control over this process. The company only had on file the CV I drew up for my IT testing experience. So I put together an addendum, listing all the things I’d done that weren’t on that CV – worked to CEO and Board level in research and support, attended Parliamentary Committee sessions on the adoption of EU legislation into UK law, negotiated with Departmental managements, promoted policies for national adoption by a major trade union, spoken at conferences, run exhibitions, briefed journalists for national newspapers, escorted and received VIP visitors from overseas governments, written books and articles, won international photographic awards – the sort of skills that I ventured to suggest that the company probably didn’t have access to anywhere else.
It made no difference, but it made me feel better, and the Board member’s face was a picture the next time I saw him. The first time I’d encountered him, he’d been rubbishing the testing work I’d done on a major project which had been badly specced up, so its failures when it was deployed to the real world really weren’t my fault. I’d basically told him that though I might be way down in the food chain and he may be showing me the door, I could and would eat people like him for breakfast.
The company was about to move into new offices, so there was actually some serious testing work to be done to make sure that server migration worked and that the transfer of the business to the new premises was seamless in terms of technology. Part of that was supposed to be done over a weekend, and I was actually asked if I’d be prepared to volunteer to work a weekend, “…but we don’t have a budget for this work, so we can’t pay you. However, we can offer enhanced time off in lieu.”
I (surprisingly politely) pointed out that this was not any sort of inducement, as the company was about to give me all the time off I could possibly want. I declined their offer. To be fair, my line managers were in an invidious position, as they were under a three-line whip to do this job without incurring any extra cost. Nonetheless, I gather that my immediate line manager was congratulated by one of his peers for being ‘courageous’ in making me that offer. And although this was the private sector, ‘courageous’ was being used in its Yes, Minister sense.
The move happened, and the migration plan I drafted in my last couple of weeks worked fairly well, I gather. Less successful was the online announcement of the move to the new office. “Click here for more details!” they posted. Guess what.
The link didn’t work.
I took a certain amount of pleasure in posting back “Your link doesn’t work. Surely this was tested before the post went live? Oh, no, I forgot – you’ve SACKED all your testers.”
Which leaves me with the problem of getting another job again.
Interviews have not been thick on the ground, but they have happened. And come to nothing. One company I went to claimed that I was “a poor cultural mix for the office and the role”. It was the most mono-cultural office I’d stepped into in twenty years. It was fairly obvious to me that I was up against that old bugbear, ageism. That’s now illegal, but that doesn’t stop some employers still using the excuse; they just dress it up in different ways. Rest assured, I’m keeping notes, and any company I suspect of putting forward an ageist excuse, no matter how disguised, for turning me down will go on my Death List against the day when I find myself in a position to take them down, fully legally of course. Anything I can do to disadvantage these companies will be done.
A company I did some contract work for three years ago advertised for a permanent role. That would be ideal, I thought; after all, they’d engaged me for four weeks and retained me for six months (and called me back eight months later when they had a testing staff shortfall and a deadline to meet), so I must’ve done something right. But my application disappeared into the void. The problem was that this company, when I worked for them before, was doing most of their new work in the EU. They’ve now gone very quiet, and I suspect I know the reason why.
Another interview felt more as if I’d stepped into a consultancy. They’d just started on a six-month project to develop the software for a new product, and had no testing resource. The CEO gave me a vast amount of detail on the company, the project, how they got the contract and pen portraits of the development team, leaving me hardly able to get a word in edgeways and thinking “If I’m not careful, I’ll get this job.” It could have been worse. The same afternoon, I had a telephone interview with another company in the same position and developing the software for a similar product – except they anticipated shipping product in October.
Right now, the best irons I have in the fire concern a major engineering multi-national who need testers in one corner of their empire. Except that the recruitment process has been carried out in fits and starts. My ISP suffered an outage at their data centre due to flash flooding earlier in the summer; I went home one day for two telephone interviews to find that neither happened. It turned out that both callers used VOIP – Voice Over Internet Protocol (in other words, use the Internet to transmit voice telephony) and my ISP hadn’t spotted that the flooding had left their interface between VOIP and the voice telephony system broken. So the call from this engineering company got delayed. Then people at their end were out in the field; then they were on leave. The phone interview happened, some two weeks later, just when I’d given up on them. The, two weeks after that, the agency came back to me to say “Sorry, the guy’s been on leave, but they’d like to have you for a face-to-face technical interview.” At which point, I’d have to demonstrate some sort of ability with coding, because their job demands it. They will train me, but I have to show that I’ve got the ability to be trained.
This time, it was my turn to be inconvenient. Because I have just started a two-week contract with a company here in Leicester. It is to test an enhancement to a major client’s existing data communications fit, and all the people who know about it are off on leave – hence the urgent need. I didn’t even have an interview for this one; my CV was sufficiently impressive to get me the gig, although it turns out that I’m not a contractor but a sub-contractor. My contract is with the agency who is supplying contract staff to the client, not with the client itself. Mind you, said client is a massive multi-national with IT management – and indeed, a company culture – that is roughly 50 years behind the times. The process for bringing a new starter onto the system is Byzantine, and is managed wholly from the States – so any message sent for urgent action has to cope with a five-hour time difference. The testers are a floor away from the developers and separated from them by three security-controlled sets of doors. And staff are not supposed to enter the building through the front door – that’s reserved for clients, even though this is nothing like a corporate HQ. Still, one of their testers announced at the beginning of the week that he’s moving on to a new job; so there might be an opening there, and owt’s better than nowt in a crisis, as someone once said.
So: I’m actively looking for work anywhere within a 50-mile radius of Leicester (further afield for the right package – after all, I’m only renting now, and so relocation is not impossible). I’m prepared to do contracting again,. though a permanent role would be preferred. And I think I can claim possibly as much experience as anyone in the testing game. It’s just a matter of getting employers to recognise the value of that experience.
Why do these landscapes make me go weak at the knees when mountains in other countries (the UK, Germany, or Switzerland to name but three), whilst very fine and wonderful things, do not? Read on…
There’s a story that the Chinese leader, Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung to some of us brought up on earlier transliteration systems) was once asked by a French journalist what he thought the effect had been of the French Revolution of 1789. He mulled over this question for a while, and then said “It’s too soon to tell.”
Thus it is with Brexit. Some short-term instability was bound to occur, because the markets are always open to uncertainty. And some equally short-term rebound was always going to happen. But pro-Brexit commentators who are pointing to that rebound and saying “Ha! See? We told you it was only Project Fear! This proves it!” are being very short-termist. Then again, short-term thinking is something the British political class does very well. When I worked for Ofwat, we set water company price limits five years ahead, and were accordingly branded as engaging in some sort of dubious long-term planning. And as for the sort of planning that the private sector engages in – well, don’t get me started. When I took up my current job, I was amazed at many of the practices that the company seemed to tolerate, sometimes things that would have gotten me sacked in the Civil Service. Having spent thirty years being browbeaten by all sorts of people who said “Huh! You and your wasteful, lazy, inefficient mollycoddled public sector ways! You wouldn’t survive five minutes in the real world of the thrusting, harsh private sector”, I found it remarkable that the standards I carried forward and lived by were seen as admirable and qualities that the company was in short supply of. And I worked a damn sight harder and for fewer rewards in the Civil Service. Personally, I would not go back, though. In the Civil Service – and, to some extent, the wider public sector – what you do is governed, not by what your managers think, but ultimately by what a politician thinks is the Right Thing To Do. But their concept of “the right thing” tends to be what will benefit them, or their party. Meanwhile, if you do a good job, a Minister will take the credit. If, on the other hand, your department does the wrong thing, everyone gets branded with that failure, and sometime branded personally. Thirty years of that is enough for anyone.
But none of that has amounted to a hill of beans in the end. The company I worked for is owned by venture capitalists, and their view after three years is that the company wasn’t making enough profit (the fact that it had been hugely profitable when they acquired it and that profitability had been on a downward trend for all of the period of their ownership was neither here nor there). So costs had to be cut, and some things that the company considered to be on the “nice to have but not essential” had to go. Like testing software before issue. The company decided to move to buying off-the-shelf software. After all, it’s always installed without problems, always works perfectly with heritage applications, has fully compatible data schemas and always works straight out of the box. What could possibly go wrong?
I wish them well with that.
As a consequence, my work has been declared to be of no value to the company going forward, and as of today I have been served notice of redundancy.
I’ve already had a couple of interviews, but neither have worked out for me. Both employers said that I had a vast amount of knowledge and experience; the first said that I was a “poor cultural fit” to the office and the role (which was a bit odd, as it was the most mono-cultural office I’d set foot in for twenty years – I suspect that was shorthand for “too old”, but of course that’s illegal now); the other said that “he’d make a great user acceptance tester, but we’re looking for a functional tester right now”, when their job description, and indeed the mood music at the interview, had been “we need an all-rounder”. So right now, I have about a month to six weeks to find something else to earn a living doing before things get distinctly dicey. It may be that I have to take up contracting again, though that didn’t work out all that well for me last time.
Interestingly, the company I did my last major contract for, in Burton on Trent, advertised for permanent testing staff a few weeks ago, so naturally an application went in; I’d found the work interesting, the company looked pretty good to work for and had a good vibe around the office, and they’d liked me enough to set me on for four weeks and keep me for six months, and to have me back to fill in some staffing shortfalls eight months later. But most of their work was with EU countries, and I find it odd that suddenly, they have gone silent on application responses. They did do business outside the EU as well, but I can’t help thinking that the Brexit decision has thrown a spanner in those particular works; and I’m hearing quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest that that’s not an uncommon response from SMEs who have traded heavily with Europe and are now having to have a major rethink about their futures.
I don’t intend to express any views on the reasons that Brexiteers had for their views. Many of them were well-founded concerns about the role of the EU and the pooling of sovereignty, the nature of international trade, or the mechanisms of democracy. As with all these things, there were arguments for and against, and both arguments had points of merit. I didn’t make a thing about my voting intentions during the referendum campaign. If anyone asked me, I told them what I thought, but always one-to-one. My reasons for voting as I did were quite personal. I suspect that most of those who voted ‘Remain’ did so because of direct personal experience of Europe, either for work, family or leisure. And whilst there were many things wrong with both campaigns, we are now where we are. I always said that whatever the result was, we as a country would have to work hard to make either outcome actually work for us.
I do think that the way the vote came out means that no-one can treat the result as a “winner takes all” issue. More than sixteen million Britons voted to stay in the EU, and the margin of victory for Brexit was just over 1.2 million. Sixteen million represents what statisticians call a “material number” in this case, “material” meaning “too big to ignore”. Some sort of accommodation for those sixteen million will have to be made in the Brexit negotiations. This is what Nigel Farage of UKIP meant when, before the vote, he said that if the result went 52%/48% in favour of ‘remain’, that “this would not be the end of the matter”. Now the boot’s on the other foot, but the same principle applies. I do not mean by this that I believe there should be a second referendum; quite apart from anything else, I doubt that any sane person could possibly stomach the level of stupidity that a re-run referendum would cause.
But there are still a number of misapprehensions about Europe, and Europeanness that many people do not properly understand. Whether these are important to anyone is up to the individual to decide. For me, though, these things mean a lot.
I don’t have a well-developed sense of “Britishness”. I was born and raised in the UK, to parents whose ancestry can be traced back at least four or five generations. But I am European, as is anyone with a pale skin and whose mother tongue is one of the major Indo-European languages, such as English. The islands of Britain were first settled by peoples who migrated from the east in prehistory and who crossed into what is now Britain via the land bridge that existed up until the end of the last Ice Age. That much is proven fact, based on archaeological findings, genetic markers in our DNA and the structure of the language we speak. How much that makes us feel any affinity to a trans-national political structure that is only some sixty years old is a matter of personal choice.
This much I know: when I started travelling in Europe, I quickly found that I fitted into European life and society surprisingly well. I first went to Austria in 1994 and immediately felt at home there. My German language skills, up until then fairly untested, seemed to serve me well, and I was able to make myself understood quite easily. I found that I was being asked directions, which meant that I must have looked like a local. The way of life seemed to suit me. And when I saw one particular tract of landscape – the Drau valley in the south of Austria, between Villach and the Grossglockner massif, I was overcome with a strange and powerful emotion that I’ve never really been able to explain.
Should that make me misty-eyed over the EU? Not particularly. The Austrians certainly aren’t, though Austria’s history of deciding its place in Europe is a long and complex one. All I know is that I reacted to Austria in a particular way, and it has made me want to go back as often as I can.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time wondering why that might be; as I said earlier, I’m about as British as you can get, and I have no particular connection with Austria. My father was in Italy during the war; I had an uncle by marriage from Düsseldorf, but I would never say that we were close. And yet I have this particular affinity with Austria that I can’t explain. But I can theorise.
The following might sound like fantasy, though if you look up ‘mitochondrial DNA’ you might get some idea as to where I’m coming from. Concepts of ‘ancestral memory’ also play a part in this theory, and that’s a far more nebulous concept. And I might just be making all this up, trying to find some sort of rationalisation for what I feel. But…
Before he died, my father spent some number of years trying to trace the family tree. On my mother’s side, we got back some four generations, and could trace my mother’s lineage back to a family in Bourne, in Lincolnshire. (Like so many families, the male line couldn’t be traced back all that far before coming to a blank in the genealogical record.) Bourne is on the edge of the Fens, and the Lincolnshire Fens were drained in the middle 17th century, after King Charles I brought in large numbers of Dutch engineers to create the networks of dykes and sluices.
We were able to go to find the site of the house where my mother’s ancestors lived. The house is no longer there, but we were able to pin the location down. The site of the house was on the Boston road, stretching out across the Fen. Seeking for further information from long-time residents, we decided to call at the nearest big farm, which was just at the Bourne end of the road where the Fen ended and higher land began. We asked there, and got a few leads but they didn’t really amount to all that much. But the significant thing to me was the name of the farmer. His name was Muller.
English surnames generally date from the 14th century and usually fall into one of four categories; they can be patronymics (Johnson, Anderson, etc., indicating ‘son of John’); they can indicate some characteristic of the ancestral person (Brown, Black and so on, usually referring to hair colour); they can be locational, referring to a town or other place of origin; or they can be occupational, such as Smith, Butcher, Clark, or my own name, Day (which sadly shows that my ancestor was pretty low down in the pecking order, as ‘Day’ refers to ‘day labourer’, someone who was only hired by the day to fulfill any menial jobs that needed doing). ‘Muller’ is an Anglicisation of the Germanic ‘Müller’, or ‘Miller’ (the words being the same in German and Dutch). It seems quite likely, then, that the farmer who was my mother’s ancestor’s nearest neighbour was of Dutch origin.
Now for the real speculation.
I speculate that my mother might have had some Dutch ancestry, though that could well be as far back as eight or ten generations. Holland is at the mouth of the Rhine, which going back into prehistory was a major communication route between the North Sea coast and central Europe. The headwaters of the Rhine are in north-east Switzerland. Meanwhile we now know, from evidence gathered in the examination of Ötzi, the early Bronze Age man found preserved in Alpine glacial ice on the present Austro-Italian border in 1991, that individuals commonly travelled around the region, crossing considerable natural barriers in order to do so. So my greatest leap of speculation, the idea that I hold explaining my reaction to a particular place in Austria, is that a distant ancestor, resident in the area, heard that things were better in some valley over to the west, and so set out on a trek which always worked westwards. Some 4,000 years later, that trek resulted in that person’s descendants moving to Lincolnshire to help drain the Fens, which in turn led to the particular accident of birth that made me who I am today.
This could all be fantasy. But if any of us are to explain why we do things, from voting intentions to where we like to go on holiday, at some point a leap of imagination must become necessary. I know that I can pay to have my DNA analysed, though if I’m going to be out of work for any length of time, that’s going to be pretty low on the list of priorities (as soon as I get my meagre redundancy money, I am going to go out and buy a new suit because I need one badly!). I also recognise that such analysis might burst my bubble and leave me with no explanation as to why I yearn for the high places of the Alps. But at least it’s a coherent tale, and as good a reason for explaining my position on EU membership as any other.
(Some more Austrian mountains follow.)
Before I moved to Kirby Muxloe, I’d heard of the place, and for two reasons. Firstly, there was a castle there. It still exists – or at least, its gatehouse and moat do. And secondly, the 1960s satirical songsmiths, Michael Flanders and Donald Swann, performed a comparatively straight song about the Beeching closures, entitled Slow Train (this link takes you to a recording of the song with pictures of the stations named; Kirby Muxloe is the second one up) .
Kirby Muxloe is located on the Midland Railway’s line from Leicester to Burton-on-Trent via Coalville. The route as a whole incorporates much of the route of the very early Leicester and Swannington line, opened in stages starting in 1832; however, that line was blessed with an extremely long and narrow tunnel at Glenfield, and so in 1848 the Midland built a diversionary line to avoid that tunnel and connect the line to the rest of their system. Kirby Muxloe is located on that line. Kirby Muxloe is quite a ‘posh’ area; and it is the area around the station that has the best houses. The house my flat is located in is a bit downmarket from those properties, but nonetheless is a reasonable Victorian villa built in 1886. (And for me, it counts as a ‘newer’ property, as my previous place went back to at least 1815!) Interestingly, if you walk back into the village, the properties get more plebian as you get further from the station. Their builders thoughtfully put the dates of their building on them, and those dates get later the further you go from the station, giving a clear picture of advancing development over time as more and more people began commuting into Leicester by train.
The line remains open for aggregate traffic, which mainly runs at night; the passenger service, however, ceased in 1964 as part of the Beeching closures. The station has been demolished and re-developed, although there have been a range of proposals to re-instate passenger services between Leicester, Coalville and Burton. A station at Kirby Muxloe would be a great help to me, as my workplace is moving in the summer to a new office across the road from Leicester Midland station. Plans were well advanced at the time of privatisation, but ironically they were shelved because privatisation “froze” proposals at their 1989 state unless they could secure the necessary funding and permissions from a range of bodies and regulatory authorities; when British Rail was the sole service provider, if they decided that a service should be re-instated, then they were the sole body to decide that from the “railway” side of the business.
But today, there was something worth seeing – a passenger train. Not a steam train, and not a regular service, but a railtour for enthusiasts to travel over a number of freight-only lines in the Midlands and South Yorkshire. I would have liked to have travelled on this, but at £75 a seat and with the nearest boarding point being Market Harborough, just over 20 miles to the south, this wasn’t practicable for me. Instead, I had to content myself with walking up the road and taking a picture of the train as it passed through the site of the station. (I contemplated another vantage point that would have made a nicer picture, but I wanted to get the train passing through the station site.)
Would that I could repeat this exercise from August on a daily basis!
Just because I’ve said that I’ve given up on the ambition of being an acclaimed and profitable writer and photographer doesn’t mean that I don’t have any projects in hand. What it does mean, though, is that those projects that I do have are either highly speculative or are being done for the love of the thing and are not expected to make me any money at all.
So it is that I actually have one book in pre-publication right now and a brief from a publisher for another one. But the publisher in both cases is the Austrian Railway Group (ARG), a body I think I’ve mentioned in these blogs before and of which (for new readers) I have the peculiar honour of being the Secretary. (About once a year, I get a speculative e-mail from some manufacturer or other of rails and other railway infrastructure materials, asking if they could introduce their product range and perhaps their representative could call at our offices? I reply to tell them that we are not a railway industry undertaking but an international group of railway enthusiasts who have a particular interest in the railways of Austria. I rarely get a second approach from the same manufacturer.)
A few years ago, I compiled a bibliography of Austrian railway literature. It was the first one in any language for a hundred years, and although it was never going to be a best-seller, I took the view – and the Group agreed – that it was a necessary work and if the ARG didn’t publish it, who would? To bear that out, sales have been, if not spectacular, at least occasional, and a specialist bookshop in Vienna regularly shifts a few copies. It’s not perfect, and there are doubtless gaps in it; but it has the benefit of actually existing. It lists just under 1000 books, reflecting the limited subject range (the UK equivalent, known as ‘Ottley’, currently runs to three volumes each listing well over 10,000 titles). I am currently collecting titles for the next edition and volume, but it could be a good five years or more before I have enough to make it worth doing the job of updating the current work and creating Volume 2.
The ARG has a range of books, unique for being books in English on Austrian railways. This rather surprised Austrians when we took the range to the Vienna show last October. Most of them are regional guides to Austrian railways and railway-related attractions; but what we have often found is that these only sell to people who already know Austria and are going to a particular region. People who don’t know the country or are only thinking of going don’t really know what is there to see; so we often get asked at shows whether we have a guide to the whole country. And we have had to say “Sorry, no”. So when we were at the big model railway exhibition at the NEC last November, after about my third conversation along those lines, I said, a bit too loudly, that we ought to do a guide to heritage and narrow gauge lines in Austria – and our Editor, who was standing behind me, said “You’ve got the job.”
The text is done, but I’m stalled because just when I needed to do the revisions and proof-reading, I got hit by the Inland Revenue for silly money because they received the tax return I sent in a month early something like three months late. And they have also re-assessed my tax liability for the past year. So that took up time sorting out an appeal against £550 of fines, quite apart from finding an extra £315 back tax on top of that. And then my other half went into hospital and needed support when she came out. Life’s like that. Finishing off the heritage guide remains near the top of my action list.
I have a second book project lined up for the ARG, though. Over the past couple of years, we’ve been inheriting various archive photographs as people’s photographic collections start needing new homes. 2017 is the 25th anniversary of the Group, and it’s been suggested to me that I could put together a large-format photo album, along the lines of my self-published photo-book The Soul of the Machine which I produced in 2012. That will hopefully appear during our anniversary year, but we shall have to see.
Having said all that, I still get ideas for books that I might produce for myself, and possibly try to get published by a proper publisher again. The Lost Railway was not a stunning success, though it did get me an invitation to give a talk in Shrewsbury a couple of weeks ago, and you can still find copies on sale here and there – the last couple I saw was in the shop at the Great Central Railway in Loughborough a few weeks ago. First come, first served! I’m still thinking of looking for another publisher to pick the series up, though I would have to buy the title back from Ian Allan if I wanted to include a reprint or second edition of the first book in the new proposal. But other projects are possible.
One such is a book which I think of as Return to the End of the Line. And that title isn’t just a suitably railway-themed random choice. For a while now, I’ve been an admirer of a book from the 1950s called The End of the Line, written by an author called Bryan Morgan. It was a personal travelogue of minor railways of Western Europe, just at the point where many of them, particularly in France, began their decline as Western Europe recovered from war and began to find prosperity again. Morgan was an enthusiast, but he didn’t revel in technical detail; rather, he would talk about the countryside, the passengers, the decor of the coach interiors and, as one reviewer said, “the shape of the conductor’s moustache”. He was also an accomplished writer, with a few, now mainly forgotten, novels to his credit as well as a number of books on railways and engineering. The End of the Line is a charming book, if a little redolent of days long past, and we could do with a few more like it to encourage people to take a pride in their hobby. After all, railways are suddenly fashionable again…
About half the book is taken up with France; it then continues to deal with Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Benelux countries and Italy. The preface suggests that Morgan had material on Scandinavia and possibly the Iberian peninsula, but none of that made it into the final publication.
But it’s not just about nostalgia. When I read Morgan’s book, I realised that, whilst the lines he described in France were almost all gone, many of those in Germany, Switzerland and Austria survived in some form or another, and I had visited quite a few of them. Moreover, Morgan had been unable to access the railways of eastern Europe, and the best he could manage was making some allusions to rumours of wonderful things just across the internal German border in the Harz. What I’d seen in the former East Germany, in the Czech Republic and Poland had a lot of the flavour of the sort of railways Morgan was seeing in the West in the 1950s. With that material, plus what I had on some of the lines he’d seen, I could probably make a reasonable story about “The End of the Line – sixty years on”; and if I could raise some money, I might even be able to get around a few more of the survivors and make quite a production of it. But persuading a publisher of the viability of the project might be a bit harder – some specialist publishers I spoke to, even those who shared my enthusiasm for the original, could see little mileage in a sequel to a sixty-year-old book that very few people today would had heard of. And then there’s the matter of rights.
A project like this would need to make quite considerable use of quotes from the original. That would require some degree of co-operation from the original author or his representatives. Research showed me that Bryan Morgan hadn’t had anything published since the middle 1970s, although one of his books did have a reprint as late as 1988. The original publishers of The End of the Line, Cleaver-Hume Press, was absorbed by Macmillan in 1967; and their current owners, who acquired the company in 2007, have no records remaining relating to heritage imprints. I could find no record of Mr. Morgan’s agents; nothing indicating where he could be contacted or who represents his literary estate now; and if he is still alive (I did find a date of birth for him), by now he would be 93. Which means that The End of the Line is not out of copyright and won’t be for some time to come.
So this project may well be in limbo for quite some time; but I shall not give up. It gives me something to think about and work towards. And who knows? A lead may emerge at any time…
(The photographs, both by me, are of Poland in 2011 and the Dresden area in 1996.)
Over the past week, I’ve been re-visiting the catalogue from an art exhibition I attended quite some while ago. The exhibition was of German paintings of the nineteenth century, held at the National Gallery back in 2001, and I seem to think that I had a spare couple of hours to kill in That London once when I was down on some union business or other – quite how I ended up at the National Gallery I don’t remember, as most of the time my TU work took me ‘Sahf the River’ and although I vaguely think I’d heard of the exhibition before going, I don’t really recollect making a conscious plan to visit it.
I do think that I went to the National Gallery and happened across the exhibition, and as I went in recollecting that I’d heard this was on. But anyway: for whatever reason, I went to this show, and was impressed with the work on display, and found myself in awe and wonder at the fact that here was an artistic tradition that was virtually unknown to the average art lover on the street. If you go around Britain’s stately homes and municipal art galleries, you will see lots of British painting (of course), plenty of French Impressionists (and their imitators), plenty of classical Italian work, and Modernism from all over the place – but next to nothing from Central Europe in the Nineteenth Century. Yet here was a whole exhibition devoted to one country’s output in that period. Perhaps only one name – Caspar Friedrich – was familiar to me, as his pictures from the beginning of the Nineteenth Century are often cited as typical of the Romantic movement. Their most typical use is on the covers of classical music albums, but quite often they may be unattributed. (The abbey in the oakwood  and Wanderer above the Sea of Fog  are the two most commonly-used pictures in that connection.)
The 20th Century saw a strange reversal of opinions and alignment between Europe and Britain. Up to 1914, our natural ally in Europe, and the country considered the most cultured, was Germany, not France. For me, the fascinating thing about the Nazi era in Germany is this very question; what made the most cultured country in Europe turn in little more than twenty years into a land whose politics set the standard against which all other repressive regimes (and, at the drop of a hat, all other political opinions) are still judged?
Re-reading the catalogue, and thinking about my experience of Central Europe, especially in light of current news stories, has made me think again about the British reaction to Germany, Austria and other “far-away lands of which we know nothing”. The current British reaction to Germany is coloured massively by the populist “Two World Wars and one World Cup” attitude of some sections of the media. Attitudes to Austria and Switzerland are, if anything, worse than that, in that these countries are almost total blank spaces on the map; often, people confuse these three countries. There are those who think that Austria, in particular, is either part of Germany or part of Switzerland, or that Austrian and German history is interchangeable. (In my experience, Austrians are not very excitable people, but put that view in particular about in Austria or to an Austrian and you will start a fight.) There are so very few voices that offer any dissenting view.
I’ve also been re-watching the recent TV drama series Deutschland ’83, about an East German soldier manipulated into acting as a spy within the West German Bundeswehr during the 1980s, when tensions were at their highest due to the American proposals to site medium-range Pershing II nuclear missiles in Germany. This is a German series and draws on the experience of Germans who lived through the period on both sides of the Wall. I don’t know how many other people picked up on some of the background that was common knowledge for the writers, but I saw instances in the drama where high-ranking members of the West German military were sceptical of the Americans’ willingness to site missiles in Germany because no matter how winnable the Pentagon thought that would make a war with the Soviet Union, the Germans were acutely aware that win or lose, Germany would be reduced to a smoking battleground and that this would be for the second time in a generation, only much worse this time. We don’t see too much of everyday life in East Germany, but what we are shown runs counter to the accepted wisdom that all life in the Eastern Bloc was, of necessity, cruel and harsh and repressive. True, the DDR was a police state; and given that the series is about espionage, we are shown upper echelons of the state security apparatus in some detail; but East Germany was probably amongst the most prosperous of the Soviet Bloc states in terms of the quality of life of its citizens. State repression was a fact of life for many citizens in that time and place; yet there are those now who consider that we in the West are experiencing increasing levels of state repression now that could easily reach those of East Germany within a few years, with state control of media, surveillance of communications, the assumption by the State or its ruling elite that they are automatically in the right on any given question, and organs of the State – education, healthcare and so on – acting as informers on grounds of threats to the nation, either real or imagined.
And there were plenty of East German citizens who examined their Stasi files when they were opened after re-unification and found that there was either no file or what there was said, effectively, “Mostly harmless”, as Douglas Adams would have put it. This was a particular upset for those in the DDR who thought themselves to be Really Radical and Dangerous Characters (and who lived on projecting that self-image). Again, this is not to play down the amount of state repression that did happen; but there were plenty of people who wanted to be thought of as Cool Dudes when they really weren’t. I’ve encountered a number of people like that in my time.
In fact, my reading about and my experience of Germany suggests that interchange between East and West, on very many levels, was far more open than we are given to believe.
More generally, my travels and experience over the past twenty years suggest to me that there is a wall of silence between the UK and Europe generally, and Central Europe in particular. Quite how this came about, it’s hard to say; but the upshot of this is that very little gets reported in the UK media about everyday events on the Continent, and vice versa. As far as the Continental media is concerned, nothing happens in the UK unless it concerns the Royal Family; whereas here in the UK, nothing happens on the Continent unless it’s Angela Merkel in political difficulty, giving the opportunity for a wildly ignorant joke or comment referencing the Third Reich.
I remember the 1960s and 1970s. Then, Europe was exotic and different; people were just beginning to discover it through the start of mass tourism, and I remember relatives bringing back stories of their travels. We still had large numbers of people and their families based on the Continent with the armed forces; and the debate about the UK joining what was then the Common Market focussed attention on Europe. In the popular media, the BBC fleshed out its children’s content with overdubbed European series whilst in the cinema, James Bond could often be seen taking his Aston Martin over the Furka Pass or performing derring-do in the Alpine mountain-top lair of some super-villain; meanwhile, The Sound of Music played to packed audiences, many of whom went to see it multiple times (my mother, for one), although its particular sugar-coated view of inter-war Austrian politics – and indeed, of the von Trapp family themselves, though this was mostly of their own making! – turns out to be mind-bogglingly at variance with reality. In this atmosphere, when Britain finally joined the EEC, there were many voices predicting that within five to ten years, we could be the leading nation in Europe.
Instead, the whole European Project within the UK was tainted by association with Edward Heath, the Conservative prime minister who led our accession; the Wilson Labour administration that replaced him confirmed our membership in a referendum which I narrowly missed voting in, and although Britain voted to remain in the EEC, the Wilson and Callaghan governments that followed took their eyes off the European ball with economic difficulties of their own; and when Callaghan was replaced by Thatcher in 1979, those economic difficulties remained the government’s priority; and in any case, there would have been an element within the Thatcher administration that saw Europe as the project of a deposed and hated leader, and therefore not worthy of any engagement with.
It is my view that the UK squandered the opportunity to maximise its influence in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s; and the current debate, the levels of disconnection with Europe, and the coming referendum are the result.
I am not convinced that David Cameron’s “package of measures” will improve matters, even if we vote to stay in the EU. That package does nothing more than reinforce the populist stereotypes; there is certainly nothing in it that does anything to increase engagement with Europe. If we do stay in, we need to look to taking measures here at home that strengthen our ties with Europe on a whole range of levels, with the aim of putting us back where we should have been in the 1970s and 80s. And if we vote to leave the EU, I see the UK turning its back on Europe – and probably having the compliment repaid – in a way that panders to certain mid-Atlanticists’ personal agendas. There are people out there who would prefer us to become the 52nd State, after all. I think it would take a concerted effort to give the UK a proper internationalist outlook if we vote to leave the EU; and I fear that there are too many vested interests in particular bilateral relations to make this genuinely happen.
A big part of the problem is the British status as an island race. We lack the perspective that living on a continent of differing cultures delivers, instead preferring to think that because people look or sound like us that they are like us, and vice versa. (And the British do have a habit of preferring their own prejudices to the facts, even when presented with and understanding those facts.) It often comes as a shock to Brits returning from a visit to the USA to discover that America is actually a foreign country, no matter how much we think we know about it from films, television and other media. I have recently been reading some online magazines from a European science fiction fan, and I was puzzled as to why his e-mail address had a .se designator (i.e. Sweden) when he was by name of obvious German heritage and lived in Italy. It turned out that he had been born in Finland to German parents but brought up in Sweden. People leak across land borders, whether others want them to or not; and where people go, influences, ideas and cultures follow. As an island race, we have to come to terms with the fact that this happens now because borders are porous, even physical ones; and to roll that back would involve uninventing the aeroplane, the steamship, and probably ultimately the wheel.
Go to Europe and you will find that there is a European consciousness and an emerging modern European culture. It has a sense of “European-ness” that transcends language, borders or political alignments. Before his fall from power and the collapse of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev was working towards bringing the Soviet Union into the EU by 2000-10; a friend of mine who worked for the UK HM Revenue & Customs was on an EU delegation to Moscow in the early 1990s to discuss tariff harmonisation between the EU and the Soviet Union. In his writings, Gorbachev spoke of “our common European home”, and he was certainly looking to move the conflict between East and West into the realms of soft power rather than hard power.
We had the opportunity throughout the 1960s and 1970s to tap into that common consciousness, and to use it for our own advantage, and mould it for our own ends. And we wasted that opportunity. Whatever we decide in June, we cannot afford to ignore any other country in the future.