Broke It

Yesterday voters of the United Kingdom may well have done what Hitler could not do: they set the UK on a path of destruction.  Who would have believed that it would end with conscious self-destruction.

 Until this day it was possible to believe that the referendum that started the bloody process of taking Great Britain out of the European Union had been an aberration, a combination of misunderstanding, apathy and sinister manipulation. But it appears this time the voters went into this with no doubt of what they were voting for.

They voted to retain as their Prime Minister their very own blond monster, the British Trump, Boris Johnson. Like Trump’s Republicans, the Conservative Party abased itself to serve him. Remember that Johnson literally threw out of the party those members of Parliament who dissented from his orders. This totalitarian act should have been met with institutional censure and his removal, but the Conservative Party swallowed it, and now they are owners of Johnson’s ongoing evil.

The effects of this vote may take some time to see, but eventually the UK will likely suffer enormous economic and political consequences, that will probably ripple through western Europe and around the world. Scotland is almost certain to secede, and Northern Ireland is more likely to rejoin the Republic of Ireland or become completely independent than it is to remain in the UK.  That is, if Brexit turns out to be real and not just the politically popular marquee on an illusion.

If the world is to address its greatest threats—most of them related to the climate emergency-- it will need to be more united, not less. Most importantly, it will need a common body of laws to keep its conflicts from becoming self-destructive. This is a big step in the wrong direction.

It can only shake any confidence that the US will right its own course in its 2020 elections. Right now the Republican Party is, without dissent, shamelessly and consciously defying the Constitution that is the most sacred of America's body of rules, that embodies the principles that are the very backbone of the nation. And it looks increasingly like they will get away with it, and enhance their chances of retaining the White House and continuing the country’s current path to totalitarian self-destruction.

The US and the UK survived Hitler because they had extraordinary leaders in FDR and Churchill. There was no such leader to oppose Boris Johnson in the UK, and it is beginning to look like there may not be one in the US to successfully oppose Trump.  Some pundits point out that a (slight) majority of UK citizens wants to stay in the European Union, but they keep losing elections.  Let's hope that's not prophetic in our case as well.

Back in the UK: The Great US/UK/EU Unravel Continues

President Obama spoke in Montreal on June 6.  Though he didn't directly mention it as an anniversary of D-Day, the launching of the massive Allied military campaign to finish the Nazi dominance of Europe, he shaped his address (of 30 minutes, see above) by describing the past 70 years of relative peace, growing prosperity and democracy in the West as first of all a result of what began to be created as a consequence of World War II.  It is possible to think anew and act anew, he said, because that's what we did then.

If you need an immediate sense of the widespread hunger for change in America and England during World War II, click on one of the broadcasts by Norman Corwyn that can be heard on Youtube or elsewhere on the Internet.  It came from the bottom up.

Corwyn's broadcasts on CBS radio were enormously popular. For example, one English officer in a Corwin script insists that after the war “things are never going to be the same as they were...We’ve discovered that the idea of every-man-for-himself, that the old class distinctions have outlived their usefulness...” Ordinary soldiers and their families must insist “on a new life—by demanding that the same tremendous sacrifice and energy, the same resources of men and material that are put into a successful war be put into a successful peace.”

Corwin wrote about “the little guy” in America as well, who proved his mettle and judgment in the war, who could do great things when given the opportunity, and who deserved good housing, health and education.

These sentiments were the underpinning for what wartime and postwar leaders did ("though not without hypocrisy" as President Obama noted in Montreal.) He talked briefly about the establishment of an international order, beginning with the creation of the United Nations, that not only kept the peace (mostly) but increased freedom and quality of life.  The changes were "based not only on power but on principle."

The role of political leadership cannot be underestimated, beginning with FDR but including Europeans whose names are not so familiar here.  But that leadership, which began during the war, not only created new international structures and new national institutions (like democratic governments in the defeated nations of Japan and Germany) but by empowering ordinary people, not only politically but in terms of opportunity, income, health and education.

In the United States, there was the GI Bill of Rights, instituted mostly to provide income for returning soldiers in the period of postwar adjustment.  But it was the less emphasized provision for a period of free higher education that changed everything.  Most soldiers didn't use their free money, but many more than anyone believed possible went to college.  Moreover, the GI Bill was one of the few postwar programs that did not discriminate against minorities.  The GI Bill built the future for millions of Americans.

The US partnered with western European nations in the Marshall Plan that went beyond saving millions from starvation to creating economic stability and paths for growth.  As part of that process, closer relationships among nations resulted in the Common Market and eventually the European Union.

Meanwhile, the hunger for change for ordinary people resulted in the Labour government in the UK immediately after World War II that created the institutions referred to as the welfare state.  Both the US and the UK also did two very important things: first, they supported the growth of labor unions which, for all the corruption that tainted them later, were instrumental in lessening income disparity as well as weakening the rigid class system in England and in growing the middle class in both countries.

Second, they both instituted high rates of taxation on the rich, partly to pay for infrastructure and institutions that served the entire society, and furthered economic prosperity. In the UK, this money paid for National Health and nationalized industries. In the US this money built highways, airports, public utilities and subsidized housing in suburbia and well as the cities.  (It also bought a huge military industrial complex, which nevertheless transformed the US map and provided middle class incomes.) Various expansions of rights (sometimes after conflict, as in the Civil Rights movement) and benefits continued.

But for at least the past 35 years, in the age of Reagan and Thatcher, many of the underpinnings of the middle class expansion and a strong and shared public sector were eroded, weakened and destroyed, along with the public support that sustained them.  It seems the further we get from the time when the rationale for creating them was clear, the less we understand their importance.

The victims of these collapses were persuaded to blame each other, but certainly to find fault with governments and political leadership.  Now we find ourselves in a period of deep confusion and disarray, in both the US and UK.  The recent UK election has created political chaos there.  It seems to have revealed a polarization of left and right as complete as the US version, but because of the parliamentary system, it has risked the possibility that a government cannot be formed.  The Conservatives are in disarray, and need additional minority party help they can barely tolerate and may not get anyway, while Labour and its possible allies don't add up to the majority necessary.

I've listened to a lot of BBC radio lately as well as reading analyses, and it seems nobody can agree what the message of that election is, or why it came out as it did. Was it just a matter of a bad campaigner running a bad campaign, versus a tech-savvy Bernie Sanders type of candidacy that brought out young voters hungry for free college tuition and radical change?  Was it terrorism?  Brexit?  Income inequality?  Nobody knows, especially on Brexit, as neither major party leader mentioned it in the campaign.  Update: Here's a later--and more upbeat-- analysis by John Cassidy that makes the most sense so far: Corbyn changed the dynamic by running against austerity, for taxing the rich to fund public services, and for a less severe break with the EU.

And just as Russia won the US election, some observers say that Russia seems the clear victor in the UK, with the government weakened, negotiations with the EU and consequently the EU itself in disorder, and either a weak Conservative leader or a leftist with a reputation as a pro-Russia EU skeptic (or as they say over there, sceptic.)

From this distance it seems that the UK as well as the US is suffering at a particularly unfortunate time from not having good leaders or even good potential leaders.  Just as it's hard to think of a candidate for President worth voting for who could actually win, it's hard to think of a British leader with the stature to bring together a stable government.

But apart from the acute deficiency in the quality of leaders today (imagine if we'd had them in the 1940s)  this larger context created after World War II and especially its deterioration in the past several decades go a long way in accounting for the mess we're in.      

Update: A more optimistic (if news hooky view) on a resurgent EU here at Politico.

What's for Brexit This Morning?

Meanwhile, the chickens are coming home to roost in the UK.

PM Theresa May's regime settled any doubts about its claimed non-ideological "technical" handling of Brexit by interpreting it as mainly a vote to limit immigration.  They did this by demanding that the UK's employers publish the proportion of their foreign workers, to aid in their goal of drastically reducing them.  It met with a storm of dismay.

This and other evidence that May would push a major separation (or "hard Brexit") from the European market, led to a "flash crash" of Brit currency, which hasn't yet recovered.  As feared, some US banks confirm they'll be moving out of the UK and into Europe once Brexit takes place.  London had been a capital of capital for the EU, but that's history.

The republic of Ireland maintains its membership in the EU, and not coincidentally, applications within the UK for Irish passports and citizenship have skyrocketed.

May's handling of Brexit was criticized by members of her own party, who called it "tyranny."  To gauge the seriousness of all this, here's the opening graph of a Guardian article:

Amid death threats and intensifying political disagreement, three of the most senior judges in England and Wales will hear claims that the government cannot trigger Brexit without parliamentary approval.

But the European Union is itself taking a hard line: "The only alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit."

Meanwhile, the process has officially begun that may lead to another referendum in Scotland to leave the UK.  Smart money would be on: as fast as possible.

On the bright side, observing all this UK chaos, remaining member states are feeling that the European Union is a pretty good deal after all.

Brexit On Our Minds

A Marshall Plan poster

We pause our unreality show called the presidential campaign for this message from Overseas.

The new PM of the UK  has announced that the formal process of Brexit--Britain's exit from the European Union-- will start by the end of March.  A major country leaving the EU has never happened, and so even with these past months of commentary and debate, this is a traumatic moment, and a very disturbing one.

The UK is already seeing the prospect of adverse economic consequences, and there are fears for the European Union itself.  The latter is especially troubling if you know the history.

At the end of World War II Europe was in shambles.  Major cities were clotted with rubble, there was widespread hunger and homelessness.  Things didn't improve fast enough in the later 1940s and nations were near collapse, with the Soviet Union ready to pick up the pieces.

Then came the Marshall Plan, which brought billions in US aid and financing but with meaningful direction from European governments.  Partly to make the Marshall Plan work, and partly to help strengthen Europe in the long term, the US used its leverage to encourage economic integration across national borders.

The breakthrough came when France and West Germany shared their coal and steel industries.  The first steps to the European Common Market and then to the European Union were taken.  Europe returned to pre-war levels of prosperity and exceeded them.

 Eventually, economic integration, common currency and free movement of people and goods had cultural and political effects.  Apart from keeping themselves free of Soviet domination, the countries of this continent--where two devastating world wars began, where hundreds of years of wars were fought--became unified to an extent that warfare among them was almost impossible.

But from the beginning, England resisted this integration.  After a couple of centuries as an imperial power, England had much stronger economic relationships with its former colonies--the Commonwealth--than it did with Europe.   But gradually and inevitably, that changed.

From this remove, there seems no broad economic reasons for the UK to leave the EU.  In terms of governance, the argument has been made that the EU is too bureaucratic and not sufficiently responsive, or democratic.  President Obama alluded to this at the UN:  "In Europe, a well-intentioned Brussels often became too isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics. Too often, in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by experts from the top down."  In fact, while US commentators tended to view this address only through the lens of US politics, much of it applies directly to the dilemma of Europe and Brexit, including underfunded institutions and income inequality.

That's particularly true of its central theme of the push-pull of global integration vs. renewed national, ethnic, tribal, religious identity and resulting hostility towards the Others.

This is an undeniable part of Brexit. To an extent still debated, it was fueled by anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment.  Its passage apparently unleashed more violence against immigrant workers, particularly Polish workers, including one death.

Reactionary sentiment is what shocked the UK and disturbs the US.  Voters for leaving the EU also were almost twice as likely to deny the climate crisis, and so on.  The fears are made explicit with the news that one of the main Brexit advocates who is also a Brit version of an alt.right politician, is hurrying over the Atlantic to coach Donald Trump for his next debate.

Even in victory the hard reactionaries are pushing for a Hard Brexit--an immediate exit without negotiation with the EU, or hope of negotiating continuing if changed relations.  Update: In an interview reported Sunday, PM May specifically supported limiting immigration as part of Brexit, regardless of its economic effect in free trade with Europe.  So she is apparently siding with the reactionaries.

While the UK still seems in a dizzy denial, seemingly without adequate leadership anywhere--certainly not of the quality that got the UK and Europe through the postwar years.

And many in the US look at this and know that it can happen here, with nightmares of waking up November 9 feeling like a lot of Brits did when Brexit passed, despite utter disbelief (including by pollsters) that it would.

Brexit on Steroids

Last week the Brit government denied the petition signed by some four million citizens to hold a second Brexit referendum.  That was predictable--the terms of the petition would have changed the rules after the game was over by insisting on a 60% vote to Leave.

But what was surprising was the withdrawal of one of the two remaining candidates for PM over the weekend and the quick decision by David Cameron to make his resignation effective immediately, not months from now.  Meaning that as of today, Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK.

Candidate May said that the Brexit should begin without delay, so it seems the UK could invoke Article 50 and begin the process more or less immediately.  Big change.

What does it mean?  Nobody knows.  This sudden burst of speed does seem to be responding to the financial pressure that resumed after a brief period of hope that it wouldn't actually happen after all.  In fact, the most persuasive long term prediction I've read suggests that when it's all figured out, the big loser will be the UK financial sector (especially the banks) and that's what will hurt the British economy.

Beyond Brexit, what kind of PM will Theresa May be?  Apparently not even the Brits know.

Though she kind of looks like Donna's mom on the David Tennant Doctor Who, doesn't she?

Brexache

The ongoing drama of  Brexit consequences is so full of incident coming thick and fast that it's impossible to keep up, so this is the last attempt for awhile.

But those consequences--not just currency and stock market drops but several cuts in the UK's credit rating, which has longer term costs--prompted a flurry of speculation on do-overs.  The New York Times provided several ways that the UK could exit Brexit, and in the New Yorker, Brit-born John Cassidy wrote a column suggesting: "Four days after the British public voted, narrowly, to leave the European Union, there are reasons to doubt that the referendum result will ever be implemented."  Update: Joining in the speculation of how Brexit could be reversed was US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Though neither the Times nor Cassidy went so far to say a Brexit exit is likely, it was clear than many in the UK that voted to Leave--including some of the leaders of the Leave campaign--were having serious second thoughts.  One Leave promise after another was being shot down, and as it became clearer that leaders on both sides were playing politics (Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place, and Leave leaders jockeying for power), both the Conservatives and Labour were in such chaos that they are unable to provide leadership at this crucial moment.

Seeing all this, PM Cameron went a step further and said he would not initiate Brexit by officially calling for the EU's Article 50 to be invoked--that it would be up to his successor, who would not be in place until late September at the soonest. And probably longer than that.

However, the mood within the EU hierarchies was swinging back and forth.  Calls for patience and calls for quick resolution came simultaneously.  Cameron had to attend an EU meeting, where he was met with pity and anger, and one of Brexits most extreme leaders, Nigel Farage, gave a Europe-hating speech at the EU parliament, and was greeted with boos and other members turning their backs on him.

Back in England, as young Remain supporters were preparing for street demonstrations, it was suggested that many of them neglected to vote in the referendum.  Hate crimes and abuse against people from immigrant populations increased so much that PM Cameron took to the floor in Parliament to condemn them.

The targets of abuse included Polish immigrants--something that hasn't happened in the US for awhile, but perhaps Trump can revive it.  Or is that the real reason he fired Corey Lewandowski?

Brexit: Buyer's Remorse (With Updates)

Apart from the folks who may not have known what they were voting to leave, there are others having strong regrets.  Two and a half million of them instantly signed a petition for a do-over referendum.  Parliament has to discuss it, but the petition as written is a non-starter.  Update Sunday: It's 3 million signatures now and a Labour MP on BBC radio said it was Parliament's responsibility to make the decision.  Also this and other signs of buyer's remorse--from Brexit supporters.  A Reuters piece went so far to say: "To leave, or not to leave: that is the question. Still. After Britain's historic vote to leave the European Union, there is no indication that a so-called Brexit will happen soon. It maybe never will.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who is resigning, has said he will not take the formal step to an EU divorce on the grounds that his successor should. Because the referendum is not legally-binding, some politicians are suggesting a parliament vote before formally triggering Brexit." 

The Wall Street Journal reports that European leaders are changing their tune about demanding a swift process, and some "suggest giving Britian a chance to reconsider its decision."

 Leadership struggles in the Conservative and Labour parties intensified, as in the words of the Washington Post: "The turmoil here underscored the degree to which the decision to break with Europe — an action seen widely here as the most significant event in the postwar history of Britain — has left the country politically divided, deeply unsettled and in uncharted territory on multiple fronts. "

As for general lessons applicable to the US, Jonathan Freedland at NYReview of Books writes: "it suggests that even great nations, those whose democratic arrangements were once regarded as a beacon to the world, are capable of acts of grievous, enduring self-harm." 

Meanwhile, a WAPost column suggests why many who didn't sign that petition will live to regret voting for Brexit.  It reflects my own puzzlements over the stated reasons, as this won't help any of them, so we are once again left with the irrational, from understandable if on balance misguided national pride to racism, unfocused rage and despair, to anarchical death wish.

Meanwhile the BBC has a clear summary of the process going forward (with graphics!) as well as a roundup of the fallout, so to speak.

To add another theatre of the absurd layer to all this, Donald Trump was in Scotland as the Brexit vote happened.  He was on a diplomatic mission opening his two golf courses in Scotland.  I give credit to major media for several articles immediately fact checking his "disciplined" speech on Hillary, but this Scotland adventure illustrates why the media can't stay away from Trump---he's just too tempting an inspiration for comic copy, even if it's basically gallows humor.  For example, Jenna Johnson's chronicles in the Washington Post, and Liz Jones in the UK Daily Mail.

Among the people Trump managed to insult were GW's Treasury Secretary Paulson (who endorsed Hillary in a WAPost takedown) and Trump's own foreign policy advisers--"most of them are no good."   In the past several days Trump lost foreign policy advisers for George Bush I and II, columnist George Will, who resigned totally from the Republican Party (all of whom are voting for Hillary) and reportedly "many experienced GOP strategists."

Two new polls--Reuters and Washington Post/ABC--show Clinton with a double digit lead over Trump, whose negatives remain at oceanic depths.  In the Post poll, Clinton  is just above the 50% threshold, an important indicator.  Two-thirds of respondents don't believe Trump is qualified.  Clinton has solidified support among Dems (including Bernie's) but Trump hasn't among GOPers.  However, an NBC poll also out Sunday gives Hillary a much more modest lead, and a CBS polls shows some swing states are close, although Trump isn't ahead in any of them.  President Obama's approval rating has gone higher, to 56%. These and other polls analyzed here.

Back to Brexit, the images above and below were two submitted in response to a call for expressing responses to it in five words or an image.  The one below may take a moment to suss out (as the Brits say--it's about the consequences of leaving) but it's the most trenchant.

Broke It

Brexit washes over today's news like a tidal wave.  The UK referendum vote to exit the European Union has already led to Prime Minister Cameron resigning (effective at a date to be determined) and may well lead to early elections.  It has thrown the UK political parties into chaos, and more than one leader may fall. Scotland is now likely to vote for independence in the hopes that it can rejoin the European Union (that country voted heavily to remain), and the politics of Northern Ireland and the non-UK Republic of Ireland also got more complicated.

If the UK is in shock at the outcome, the US is stumbling from not having paid much attention to the vote, especially with the likelihood--including election day polls--that the status quo would be maintained.  Today the US stock market tumbled along with other financial markets around the world, the British pound fell into a hole it isn't likely to climb out of for awhile.

All this over something that hasn't happened yet, and may not for a couple of years. British Parliament has to have a vote on enabling legislation, and there's a negotiation of terms process that involves all 27 EU countries.  Right now the EU leadership is pissed off and says it wants a quick divorce, but nobody actually knows whether this spins forward out of control, or as the reality sinks it, the process slows and disappears from the headlines.  There's even the possibility that the final agreement in a couple of years will be put up for another referendum.

The stated issues are loss of some control to the central EU bureaucracy, the costs paid to the EU, and immigration.  Though there seems a racist element to the anti-immigration argument, it's probably more complicated.  The only immigration the EU mandates is from other EU member countries, which basically means Poland.  Racially GB is still 87% white, but "white" means different things to different people.  The fear of possible future refugees from Syria was exploited.

More worrisome to anyone who knows a little about 20th century history is a possible reversal of the trend of European unification.  Two world wars started with a lot of separate small states and competing alliances in Europe, after centuries of earlier if less globally devastating wars the same way.  The vote has energized and may embolden right wing groups in other EU countries that advocate exit and ultimately dissolution.

The power elites and the global 10% do bear a lot of responsibility for ignoring the plight of the 90%, particularly due to EU (and UK) austerity after the Great Recession.  They are the ones who will be hurt first by Brexit--from London banks to the British film industry.  But of course the price will ultimately be paid by the employees and the economy as a whole, as it always is.  If they are smart, they will respond, and quickly.  Though countering a wave is a lot more difficult.

The Brexit vote wave was inundating the world when Donald Trump showed up in Scotland to open his golf course, which is already apparently underwater (in the financial sense) and has pissed off a lot of Scots.  Though he was described as pretty clueless about the significance of the vote, he predictably made common cause with it.  People are angry, he said.

But the real question that Brexit raises is are they apocalyptically angry.  UK leaders were confident that Brexit wouldn't pass because they had so graphically described the catastrophic economic consequences, including a steep drop in average income.  People would be sensible, especially British people.

But they didn't listen, leading to the sense--or the fear--that this anger is so strong that a large enough segment of the electorate is willing to burn the house down.  So apart from his white separatist base, Trump is counting on millions of votes from people who not only don't care that he is clueless, crude and infantile--they like it, because it means he's not one of the experienced professional officeholders they despise.  Better an entertaining egomaniac buffoon than the hated establishment.

Hillary may be well ahead in the polls, but the polls in the UK suggest that a lot of people told pollsters they were voting to remain, when in fact they voted to leave. Pollsters are also part of the despised system.  (And the polls are much closer in some swing states anyway.)

There's a limit to the numbers that white racists can access in the US in a presidential election, and the guy who threw golf balls onto Trump's course that were etched with swastikas indicates that a lot of people know what's at stake.  But there may be this contagion.

 Only time will tell if, in any sense, the Brexit vote was the bullet that got an obscure archduke, or an indicator of a desperation that invites apocalypse.  If so, it will not yield to logical analysis.  There will be reasons but not reason enough.  It will have gone beyond that, an eruption from a collective unconscious that sows anarchy at precisely the time that civilization needs systems of cooperation and responsive institutions on a global scale.

Update: Two late stories of interest: Tim Teeman in Daily Beast suggests GB is undergoing a certain buyer's remorse already over Brexit, including some of the leaders who promoted it:  "On Friday morning, the so-called respectable figures of the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, looked as shocked and ashen as those who wanted to remain in the EU. If there is triumphalism it is of the most funereal sort. Britain is split down the middle, and all Johnson really wants to do is play politics, pitching at his first press conference to be Prime Minister."

And a Washington Post story says that Britons have been "frantically Googling what the EU is" hours after they voted to leave it.  NPR, the Atlantic and other outlets jumped on the same phenomenon.

Slouching Towards Urgency

In just the past few days, political leaders of three major nations declared the climate crisis a major global concern demanding action.

In what was clearly the fruit of ongoing diplomacy, the United States and China issued a joint statement declaring "In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, and the related issue of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the United States and China recognize the urgent need for action to meet these twin challenges. Both sides reaffirm their commitment to contribute significantly to successful 2015 global efforts to meet this challenge. Accordingly, China and the United States will work together..."  A few specific instances followed.

Secretary of State John Kerry soon followed up on this with a major speech in Indonesia, which made headlines both before and after it was given. "When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so.

And the reason is simple: The science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain."

He outlined some of the consequences: sea level rise that would, among other things, flood half of Jakarta; species extinction; water shortages; agricultural transformation; unpredictable and violent weather--all of which involve heavy costs, among other dire consequences.

And in a widely quoted line: "And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

But perhaps the most interesting statements came from the UK, which has recently been beset with immense flooding in coastal areas.  Rains and storms had kept the country and the government in a crisis mode for weeks.  The floods have exposed a lack of urgency in executing protective plans, due to budgeting priorities.

In this context the leader of the Labour Party made headlines demanding a national commitment to addressing the climate crisis.  According to the Guardian: "Britain is sleepwalking towards disaster because of a failure to recognise that climate change is causing the extreme weather that has blighted the country for more than a month, Ed Miliband has warned.

The Labour leader says in an interview with the Observer that climate change is now an issue of national security that has the potential not only to destabilise and cause conflict between regions of the world, but to destroy the homes, livelihoods and businesses of millions of British people.

Criticising[Tory PM] David Cameron for appearing to backtrack on his commitment to the environmental cause, he calls on senior figures in all parties to unite behind the scientific evidence that climate change is a key factor in extreme weather. Failure to do so, he warns, will have catastrophic consequences."

The story concludes: "Miliband said he was ready to work with politicians of all parties, including "green" Tories such as Zac Goldsmith, to rebuild the consensus around climate change. He announced a three-point plan to tackle the crisis, including tougher decarbonisation targets, moves to strengthen the country's resilience to floods, and a push to boost business investment in the green economy."

This outlined program is similar to steps advocated by Secretary Kerry and President Obama, and it even more explicitly recognizes the twin challenges of the far future and the near future of inevitable consequences--which as in the UK is now the present.

  In a story not directly related to these statements by Miliband, Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats party and deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government with the Tories, suggested a new coalition with Labour.  This may be little more than UK political posturing, but it does open the possibility of a united campaign for the government in which the climate crisis is a central issue.

It's all relatively little and definitely late, but in this case--as my friend Beckett says-- something's better than nothing.