Andrew Levi
@andrewprlevi.bsky.social
▫️Technology investor ▫️Former diplomat and tech industry executive▫️“Top” New York Times▫️“Leading” Der Spiegel▫️“Senior” BBC▫️“Valued” Financial Times▫️“Persona non grata” Vladimir Putin▫️
Maybe.
Nonetheless, the reasons (ill understood, for the most part, in my view) why such a flimsy, poorly executed “movement” can find resonance with maybe 1 in 3 people you meet in the street, seem to remain.
Nonetheless, the reasons (ill understood, for the most part, in my view) why such a flimsy, poorly executed “movement” can find resonance with maybe 1 in 3 people you meet in the street, seem to remain.
October 28, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Maybe.
Nonetheless, the reasons (ill understood, for the most part, in my view) why such a flimsy, poorly executed “movement” can find resonance with maybe 1 in 3 people you meet in the street, seem to remain.
Nonetheless, the reasons (ill understood, for the most part, in my view) why such a flimsy, poorly executed “movement” can find resonance with maybe 1 in 3 people you meet in the street, seem to remain.
„Die Person, Ernst Schmidt, promovierte vor 10 Jahren; sie ist Expertin im Bereich XY …“.
I know.
Still …
🙂 /3. End
I know.
Still …
🙂 /3. End
October 15, 2025 at 10:24 AM
„Die Person, Ernst Schmidt, promovierte vor 10 Jahren; sie ist Expertin im Bereich XY …“.
I know.
Still …
🙂 /3. End
I know.
Still …
🙂 /3. End
In German, short of a language reform in which the gender of everything and everyone becomes neuter (which would be a great liberation), isn’t it perhaps time to make more use of “Person” for humans, and gender all following references as feminine? /2.
October 15, 2025 at 10:23 AM
In German, short of a language reform in which the gender of everything and everyone becomes neuter (which would be a great liberation), isn’t it perhaps time to make more use of “Person” for humans, and gender all following references as feminine? /2.
You’re right, of course. And the whole culture war campaign (and aesthetic) is both ridiculous and dangerous.
That said, gendering is in itself a deep-seated problem. The linguistic aspect of it can easily be avoided in English (“dear colleague; friend; professor etc.” “they; their; them etc.”. /1.
That said, gendering is in itself a deep-seated problem. The linguistic aspect of it can easily be avoided in English (“dear colleague; friend; professor etc.” “they; their; them etc.”. /1.
October 15, 2025 at 10:23 AM
You’re right, of course. And the whole culture war campaign (and aesthetic) is both ridiculous and dangerous.
That said, gendering is in itself a deep-seated problem. The linguistic aspect of it can easily be avoided in English (“dear colleague; friend; professor etc.” “they; their; them etc.”. /1.
That said, gendering is in itself a deep-seated problem. The linguistic aspect of it can easily be avoided in English (“dear colleague; friend; professor etc.” “they; their; them etc.”. /1.
Your figures, if you have any, are wrong.
Any credible concept of how to create circumstances in which the security, prosperity & well-being of the UK & its people can be protected, promoted & sustained, is lacking.
Of course we must deal with the situation as we find it.
We must also shape it.
Any credible concept of how to create circumstances in which the security, prosperity & well-being of the UK & its people can be protected, promoted & sustained, is lacking.
Of course we must deal with the situation as we find it.
We must also shape it.
October 11, 2025 at 1:03 PM
Your figures, if you have any, are wrong.
Any credible concept of how to create circumstances in which the security, prosperity & well-being of the UK & its people can be protected, promoted & sustained, is lacking.
Of course we must deal with the situation as we find it.
We must also shape it.
Any credible concept of how to create circumstances in which the security, prosperity & well-being of the UK & its people can be protected, promoted & sustained, is lacking.
Of course we must deal with the situation as we find it.
We must also shape it.
That’s flatly untrue. On both counts (the second being completely detached from any credible account of UK realities).
Austerity was dumb (and cruel and/or selfish).
Brexit has been worse.
And, even if not (it has been), it’s beyond dumb to self-harm, especially entirely unnecessarily.
Austerity was dumb (and cruel and/or selfish).
Brexit has been worse.
And, even if not (it has been), it’s beyond dumb to self-harm, especially entirely unnecessarily.
October 8, 2025 at 10:47 AM
That’s flatly untrue. On both counts (the second being completely detached from any credible account of UK realities).
Austerity was dumb (and cruel and/or selfish).
Brexit has been worse.
And, even if not (it has been), it’s beyond dumb to self-harm, especially entirely unnecessarily.
Austerity was dumb (and cruel and/or selfish).
Brexit has been worse.
And, even if not (it has been), it’s beyond dumb to self-harm, especially entirely unnecessarily.
There’s a pretence in this argument that the security & stability of Europe is inevitable, not fundamental to UK security, prosperity & well-being, &/or is free-rideable by us, &/or that the EU isn’t central to it all.
And that throttling the economy is somehow clever, or unimportant.
All false.
And that throttling the economy is somehow clever, or unimportant.
All false.
October 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM
There’s a pretence in this argument that the security & stability of Europe is inevitable, not fundamental to UK security, prosperity & well-being, &/or is free-rideable by us, &/or that the EU isn’t central to it all.
And that throttling the economy is somehow clever, or unimportant.
All false.
And that throttling the economy is somehow clever, or unimportant.
All false.
The question is what we should now do.
We should walk and chew gum.
Take the best domestic policy decisions we can, in our reduced and damaged circumstances, and implement them as best we can.
And take the right decisions and actions to reverse the strategic failure of the last decade. /2. End
We should walk and chew gum.
Take the best domestic policy decisions we can, in our reduced and damaged circumstances, and implement them as best we can.
And take the right decisions and actions to reverse the strategic failure of the last decade. /2. End
October 8, 2025 at 9:12 AM
The question is what we should now do.
We should walk and chew gum.
Take the best domestic policy decisions we can, in our reduced and damaged circumstances, and implement them as best we can.
And take the right decisions and actions to reverse the strategic failure of the last decade. /2. End
We should walk and chew gum.
Take the best domestic policy decisions we can, in our reduced and damaged circumstances, and implement them as best we can.
And take the right decisions and actions to reverse the strategic failure of the last decade. /2. End
“Effort”, as you choose to name it, isn’t a fixed resource.
Perhaps you & I can agree, after all, that leaving the EU was a huge strategic error & that Lexit arguments for it were just grimly ill-founded fantasies.
As for “we are where we are” arguments right now, I of course agree: we are. /1.
Perhaps you & I can agree, after all, that leaving the EU was a huge strategic error & that Lexit arguments for it were just grimly ill-founded fantasies.
As for “we are where we are” arguments right now, I of course agree: we are. /1.
October 8, 2025 at 9:11 AM
“Effort”, as you choose to name it, isn’t a fixed resource.
Perhaps you & I can agree, after all, that leaving the EU was a huge strategic error & that Lexit arguments for it were just grimly ill-founded fantasies.
As for “we are where we are” arguments right now, I of course agree: we are. /1.
Perhaps you & I can agree, after all, that leaving the EU was a huge strategic error & that Lexit arguments for it were just grimly ill-founded fantasies.
As for “we are where we are” arguments right now, I of course agree: we are. /1.
What goes to whom depends on political decisions & their execution.
It’s true that whatever the size of annual economic output, that amount can be more, or less, fairly shared.
Throttling it as a way of making people better off is dumb.
Pretending the EU is the - or even a - problem, equally so.
It’s true that whatever the size of annual economic output, that amount can be more, or less, fairly shared.
Throttling it as a way of making people better off is dumb.
Pretending the EU is the - or even a - problem, equally so.
October 8, 2025 at 9:00 AM
What goes to whom depends on political decisions & their execution.
It’s true that whatever the size of annual economic output, that amount can be more, or less, fairly shared.
Throttling it as a way of making people better off is dumb.
Pretending the EU is the - or even a - problem, equally so.
It’s true that whatever the size of annual economic output, that amount can be more, or less, fairly shared.
Throttling it as a way of making people better off is dumb.
Pretending the EU is the - or even a - problem, equally so.
The difference between being in the EU and not is currently around £140 billion a year in UK economic output.
Deployed as public funds, that’s a govt expenditure increase of 12%, with no danger of stoking excessive inflation.
Your question answers itself. But not in the way you appear to think.
Deployed as public funds, that’s a govt expenditure increase of 12%, with no danger of stoking excessive inflation.
Your question answers itself. But not in the way you appear to think.
October 7, 2025 at 9:49 PM
The difference between being in the EU and not is currently around £140 billion a year in UK economic output.
Deployed as public funds, that’s a govt expenditure increase of 12%, with no danger of stoking excessive inflation.
Your question answers itself. But not in the way you appear to think.
Deployed as public funds, that’s a govt expenditure increase of 12%, with no danger of stoking excessive inflation.
Your question answers itself. But not in the way you appear to think.
No. These are weak, sad excuses, old as the hills & as fake as a $3 bill, for parties & govts which fail to gain support for their policies, or do so but are too incompetent to implement them.
The bigger question is why even consider the massive strategic error of leaving the EU in the first place.
The bigger question is why even consider the massive strategic error of leaving the EU in the first place.
October 7, 2025 at 9:14 PM
No. These are weak, sad excuses, old as the hills & as fake as a $3 bill, for parties & govts which fail to gain support for their policies, or do so but are too incompetent to implement them.
The bigger question is why even consider the massive strategic error of leaving the EU in the first place.
The bigger question is why even consider the massive strategic error of leaving the EU in the first place.
Has the Nobel Prize for Political Sketch Writing been announced yet?
October 7, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Has the Nobel Prize for Political Sketch Writing been announced yet?
Public ownership is available to any EU government wishing it. Fairy tales told about that subject alone could fill a library.
Issues around “neoliberalism” can be addressed within the EU just as well as or better than outside it.
Such objections are very old, very tired, & seriously ill-founded.
Issues around “neoliberalism” can be addressed within the EU just as well as or better than outside it.
Such objections are very old, very tired, & seriously ill-founded.
October 7, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Public ownership is available to any EU government wishing it. Fairy tales told about that subject alone could fill a library.
Issues around “neoliberalism” can be addressed within the EU just as well as or better than outside it.
Such objections are very old, very tired, & seriously ill-founded.
Issues around “neoliberalism” can be addressed within the EU just as well as or better than outside it.
Such objections are very old, very tired, & seriously ill-founded.
The Lexit argument for leaving the EU, like so many other variants of the genre, massively overstates both the (claimed) constraints of EU membership on national governments, and the supposed “freedoms” made available by EU exit. And massively understates the benefits of EU membership.
October 7, 2025 at 10:30 AM
The Lexit argument for leaving the EU, like so many other variants of the genre, massively overstates both the (claimed) constraints of EU membership on national governments, and the supposed “freedoms” made available by EU exit. And massively understates the benefits of EU membership.
Quite.
Even if any of the “benefits” seen in isolation can be counted as real (that’s a big “if”, and a definite “no” on nearly all of the 75 claims) the net effect, once the negative impacts are taken into account, is very heavily to the UK’s disadvantage, on any credible measure.
Even if any of the “benefits” seen in isolation can be counted as real (that’s a big “if”, and a definite “no” on nearly all of the 75 claims) the net effect, once the negative impacts are taken into account, is very heavily to the UK’s disadvantage, on any credible measure.
October 6, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Quite.
Even if any of the “benefits” seen in isolation can be counted as real (that’s a big “if”, and a definite “no” on nearly all of the 75 claims) the net effect, once the negative impacts are taken into account, is very heavily to the UK’s disadvantage, on any credible measure.
Even if any of the “benefits” seen in isolation can be counted as real (that’s a big “if”, and a definite “no” on nearly all of the 75 claims) the net effect, once the negative impacts are taken into account, is very heavily to the UK’s disadvantage, on any credible measure.
It’s surely a nonsense.
There are arguments for & against higher or lower contactless limits.
But none for suggesting any significant benefit to the UK from £100 instead of £30 (or £50).
And: with appropriate anti-fraud measures in place, a higher limit was anyway possible as an EU member.
There are arguments for & against higher or lower contactless limits.
But none for suggesting any significant benefit to the UK from £100 instead of £30 (or £50).
And: with appropriate anti-fraud measures in place, a higher limit was anyway possible as an EU member.
October 6, 2025 at 9:07 PM
It’s surely a nonsense.
There are arguments for & against higher or lower contactless limits.
But none for suggesting any significant benefit to the UK from £100 instead of £30 (or £50).
And: with appropriate anti-fraud measures in place, a higher limit was anyway possible as an EU member.
There are arguments for & against higher or lower contactless limits.
But none for suggesting any significant benefit to the UK from £100 instead of £30 (or £50).
And: with appropriate anti-fraud measures in place, a higher limit was anyway possible as an EU member.
It’s also untrue to suggest that the UK couldn’t engage Swiss equities trading while in the EU. So far as I know, anyway. Perhaps an expert can clear up the question.
October 6, 2025 at 6:08 PM
It’s also untrue to suggest that the UK couldn’t engage Swiss equities trading while in the EU. So far as I know, anyway. Perhaps an expert can clear up the question.
Seems to me desperation set in on point 1, citing a number representing only part of an overall £ (or € or $) figure which, net, is a *loss* to the UK per year of an amount approximately 10x the supposed “gain”. “Gully Foyle” would deny it, of course. But that’s because he/she/they/it is/are wrong.
October 6, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Seems to me desperation set in on point 1, citing a number representing only part of an overall £ (or € or $) figure which, net, is a *loss* to the UK per year of an amount approximately 10x the supposed “gain”. “Gully Foyle” would deny it, of course. But that’s because he/she/they/it is/are wrong.
P.S. Apologies for typo in post 2: the number of posts required to list the 75 claims 5 at a time is, of course (mercifully), only 15. And I’m going to claim that as a Brexit benefit 🙂
October 6, 2025 at 11:46 AM
P.S. Apologies for typo in post 2: the number of posts required to list the 75 claims 5 at a time is, of course (mercifully), only 15. And I’m going to claim that as a Brexit benefit 🙂