So,
as a rule, PK and I avoid the painful subject of politics. It's just
too much like hard work. But a few weeks ago, here in the UK, we had
a vote as to whether or not to stay in the European Union. Now, this
was the second time I had
personally
been asked the Stay or Go question: the first time was in 1975, with
the first EU referendum - which was also the first time I was old
enough to take part in a national vote. Most people, back in those
days, voted Remain and that was that.
Now,
this is the bit I don't understand. In the early-to-mid-Seventies,
the UK's economy was a mess: we were about to head down the world
economic rankings (Italians cheerfully recall Il
Sorpasso
of a decade later) with no obvious way back up; people were leaving
the country in droves; the whole place was, to be frank, a bit of a
toilet. After fortysomething years of EU membership, on the other
hand, we found ourselves in posession of the world's fifth largest
economy (and this is with the arrival of China, India, Brazil and so
on, the new pace-setters); people were coming
here in droves, because Britain was actually quite an interesting
place to live and work; and, overall, it was markedly less of a toilet
than it was at the start of my adult life. Therefore
- with four decades of EU membership behind us - is all this a
coincidence? Or a consequence? I took it to be the latter and, like
any good Londoner, voted Remain. Seems I was wrong.
After
the Leave vote: the perpetrators
(with the exception of Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary! Who next? Coco the Clown?)
have fled the scene of the crime, leaving collective
meltdown/political chaos/intergenerational strife/international
scorn. With no sign of it ending. If I wasn't having to live through
it, it would be quite entertaining. But I am having to live through
it and, seriously, it's not fun at all.
And
then: an image (see accompanying pic) which, however tangentially,
says, this
is where we are.
It's
a bottle of Warre's 2010 port, stuck upside-down in an optics
dispenser. I took the picture in a drinks tent at this year's Henley
Royal Regatta - an annual sporting event for oarsmen and their
hangers-on which reckons itself to be more socially exclusive than
Royal Ascot and is certainly stuffier and more protocol-obsessed, by
a margin. It's not without its charm.
But
port in a dispenser? I can see that it makes a sort of sense - the
drinks tents are mobbed from about eleven a.m. onwards, so you want
to get the stuff out fast - but:
a)
Who wants port
on a hot July afternoon with shade at a premium and litres of other
alcoholic drinks (an awful lot of Pimm's) gurgling around inside
them?
b)
What were the first glassfuls like, assuming there were any takers?
Did anyone attempt to deal with the lees? The staff in the Henley
tents are all sweet young student types, doing holiday jobs. They
know as much about port as I do about Micronesia. Less.
c)
How long does it take to pour
a small glass of port, assuming anyone's mad enough to want it?
d)
Who actually said, let's take one of the
most traditional, intractable, institution-bound of British drinks,
tip it upside-down like gutbucket rum and serve it to people for
money and if there are
adverse consequences, it's too late, we've made a decision, let's
just move on? Did anybody think this thing through? Is anyone in
charge, here?
I
could go on, but I'd be depressing myself and boring everyone else.
You can see where I'm heading, though: along with millions of others,
I now feel as if I'm living in the sociopolitical equivalent of an
inverted port bottle with the lees sloshing about and a pub optic
stuck where the sun doesn't shine, all because some pillock thought
that
was a better way to do things.
All right, that's it, I'm done.
CJ
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.