Rants&Rambles

Older, Happier

Politics aside, I have a great life. I see myself getting older but happier. And there are lots of people like me about. I have never been one to worry about old age or the many associated illnesses that the media tends to dwell on.

So when I came across a list (love lists) on how to be happier as you age, I went through it more as a tick list of things I already do, with a view to doing them more.

Carl Honoré’s 12 steps to help you be happy in later life

1. If you think of yourself as old, you will be old. The media will bang on about dementia and loneliness, but ignore them. Concentrate on the upside.

2. Take yourself out of your comfort zone. Resist being pigeonholed; keep experimenting; challenge yourself and society’s stereotyping of you.

3. Try to stay healthy. Eat well and take lots of exercise – it’s good for brain and body. Exercise doesn’t have to mean playing competitive ice hockey; the odd brisk walk will keep you in shape.

4. Look for positive role models. Helen Mirren, David Attenborough and, best of all, Michelangelo, who lived until the ripe old age (in 16th-century terms) of 88 and spent the final 20 years of his life designing and overseeing the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Now that’s a way to go out.

5. Seek to become the person you always wanted to be. One reason many people are at their happiest in their 60s is that they feel freer and less beholden to others. They contain all their previous selves and can start to make sense of them.

6. Don’t just maintain social connections with your own age group: mix across the generations as much as you can. Inter-generational contact has become increasingly difficult, but if we can do it we benefit – and society benefits.

7. Be willing to let stuff go. If that friendship isn’t working, drop it. Streamline your life. There is less time left, so make it count.

8. Ageing should be a process of opening rather than closing doors. “We will lose some things – speed, stamina, a bit of mental agility – but in many other respects we gain,” says Honoré. We learn new skills, have greater social awareness, are likely to be more altruistic, are “lighter” in our approach to life – because we are less hung up on creating a good impression – and can see the bigger picture. It may be that we are in a position to make a greater contribution to society in our 60s and 70s than in our so-called prime.

9. Honesty is the best policy. Don’t try to pretend you are not 75 or 85 or whatever age you are. “As soon as we start lying about our age, we’re giving the number a terrible power – a power it doesn’t deserve,” says Honoré. People do it because there are so many ageist assumptions attached to age, but the way to fight back is to subvert those assumptions.

10. Society tells us that sex, love and romance belong to the young, but it’s not true. Plenty of older people continue to experience the joy of sex. But there are no rules: have as much – or as little – as you want. Some older people see it as a blessed release to escape the shackles of falling in love (and lust), but others can’t imagine life without it. Whatever turns you on.

11. Ignore people who say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. You can. Despite the common perception that creativity is the preserve of the young, we can get more creative as we get older. Our neural networks loosen up and we have the confidence and freedom to challenge groupthink. Honoré was encouraged last year when the Turner prize abolished its age limit for artists. Michelangelo could have been a contender.

12. Don’t pretend death isn’t coming. Embrace it – just not yet. “It’s useful to know our lives are bookended,” says Honoré. “When time is running out, it becomes more precious. It gives life shape and, in some ways, meaning.” Don’t dwell morbidly on it, but don’t shy away from it either. The closer you get to it, the less you are likely to fear it and the greater your focus will be on the things that really matter.

Political, Rants&Rambles

Nine lessons and No Carols: brexit Lesson 7

There is no such thing as a trade deal + . “Pluses” merely signify that all deficiencies in the named deal will miraculously disappear when we Brits come to negotiate our own version of it.

As the scale of the humiliation they think the Prime Minister’s proposed deal delivers started, to dawn on politicians who had thought Brexit was a cakewalk – we have seen a proliferation of mostly half-baked cake alternatives. They all carry at least one plus. Canada has acquired many.

Besides “Canada +++” or SuperCanada, as it was termed by the former Foreign Secretary, we have Norway +, which used to be “NorwaythenCanada” then became “Norwayfornow” and then became “Norway + forever”. And now even “No deal +”, which also makes appearances as managed no deal” and “no deal mini deals”.

What is most depressing about the nomenclature is the sheer dishonesty.

The pluses are inserted to enable one to say that one is well aware of why existing FTA x or y or Economic Area deal a or b does not really work as a Brexit destination, but that with the additions you are proposing, the template is complete.

We even have the wonderfully preposterous sight of ex Brexit Secretaries alleging that the very Canada + deal they want has already been offered by Presidents Tusk and Juncker and that all that needs doing is to write this as the destination into the Political Declaration.

But let me tell you, as someone dealing with both at the outset of this process: what the EU Institutions mean by Canada + is not remotely what ex Brexit and Foreign Secretaries and the Institute of Economic Affairs scribes mean by it. The title page is the same; the contents pages are different.

Not for nothing did an unkind Brussels source label Boris Johnson’s plan A+ ( another + of course), Chequers 3.0.

It is nonsense. And aside from containing a wish list an understandable wish list – of things that are not actually present in Canada’s EU deal, it does not solve the backstop.

“No deal+” is brought to us courtesy of all the people who told a great free trade deal would be struck before we even left because the mercantile interests of key manufacturing players in Member States would prevail against the pettifogging legalistic ivory tower instincts of the Brussels ayatollahs.

Yet, as some of us forecast well over 2 years ago, it did not turn out like that. And that the Brussels theologians exhibited rather more flexibility than the key Member States when it came to the crunch.

And not a peep was heard from the titans of corporate Europe. Except to back very robustly the position in capitals that the continued integrity of the Single Market project was vastly more important to them than the terms of a framework agreement with the U.K. A position which won’t change during the trade negotiations ahead either.

The “no deal + “ fantasy is that if we just had the guts to walk away, refuse to sign the Withdrawal Agreement with the backstop in it, and withhold a good half of the money the Prime Minister promised this time last year, capitals, suddenly realising we were serious, would come running for a series of mini deals which assured full trading continuity in all key sectors on basically unchanged Single Market and Customs Union terms.

I don’t know what tablets these people are taking, but they must be very very good.

The reality is that if the deal on the table falls apart because we have said “no”, there will not be some smooth rapid suite of mini side deals – from aviation to fisheries, from road haulage to data, from derivatives to customs and veterinary checks, from medicines to financial services, as the EU affably sits down with this Prime Minister or another one.

The 27 will legislate and institute unilaterally temporary arrangements which assure continuity where they need it, and cause us asymmetric difficulties where they can. And a UK Government, which knows the efficacy of most of its contingency planning depends, to a greater or lesser degree on others’ actions out of its control, will then have to react – no doubt with a mixture of inevitable compliance and bellicose retaliation.

We already see the next generation of fantasies out there, and it’s now just a matter of time before a Tory leadership contender offers them publicly as the Houdini act.

A suite of very rapid legal mini deals, accompanied by the existing Withdrawal Agreement deal on citizen’ rights, the complete dropping of the backstop, and only paying the remainder of the £39billion cheque when the mini deals have turned into the miraculous Canada (with lots of pluses) deal.

All of which must happen in months. But of course…

To which the EU answer will be a calm but clear “Dream on. You still want a transition? All existing terms and conditions apply. And when it comes to any FTA – deep or shallower – “nothing is agreed till everything is agreed” – and that still includes the fish”.

They may put it slightly more politely. But not much, in the circumstances.

And to anyone who tells me – and we’ll hear plenty of it in the coming weeks, I assure you – “but the EU stands to lose access to London’s capital markets and their companies will suffer unless they do our quick and dirty “no deal” deal”, I think I would just say “even the last 30 months have evidently still not taught you how the EU functions: try again in another 30…”,

If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.

I am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.

But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.

The complacency that such things cannot and would not ever really happen in modern economies is staggering. Mercifully, it is not shared in either Whitehall or the Berlaymont. But these are outcomes which proper political leadership is about both understanding, contingency planning against – and avoiding.

Markets continue to react, or have until this week, as if something must turn up and that “no deal” is a virtually unimaginable scenario for politicians professing to be serious, to contemplate. That risk has therefore been seriously underpriced for a year or more, because we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they could not then control, but feel they might exploit.

Nothing is more redolent of the pre First World War era, when very few believed that a very long period of European peace and equilibrium could be shattered in months.

Rants&Rambles

Be Kind (to yourself too)

Self-criticism can take a toll on our minds and bodies. It’s time to ease up.

Yes, it’s an obnoxious cliché, but evolutionary psychologists have studied our natural “negativity bias,” which is that instinct in us all that makes negative experiences seem more significant than they really are. 

Basically we’ve evolved to give more weight to our flaws, mistakes and shortcomings than our successes. 

Self-criticism can lead to ruminative thoughts that interfere with our productivity, and impact our bodies by stimulating inflammatory mechanisms that lead to chronic illness and accelerate aging,

But there are ways around our negativity bias, and it is possible to turn self-criticism into opportunities for learning and personal growth.

Evolution programmes us to monitor our mind and our behaviour. In order to recover, we first must notice that a mistake has occurred but just noticing that we’ve deviated from our expectations or goals — whether that’s eating too much or not completing a daily to-do list — isn’t necessarily a problem.

In some cases, like when our safety or moral integrity are on the line, it’s crucial that our brains tell us good from bad so that we learn the right lessons from our experiences.

But sometimes, assigning negative value to our experiences and behaviors can “ensnare” us into cycles of unhelpful rumination — like when you lie in bed at night needlessly replaying an awkward interaction or repeatedly revisiting that minor typo. This is where we get into the harmful, counterproductive side of self-criticism.

And it’s that type of self-criticism that can have measurably destructive effects, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, negative self-image and, in a particularly vicious twist, decreased motivation and productivity, according to a study published in the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. Another study, published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, found that self-criticism leads people to becoming preoccupied with failure.

Basically, beating yourself up for finishing only three of the five items on your to-do list is going to make you less likely to finish those last two items — and yet we’re programmed to fall into that pattern. 

The solution is called self-compassion: the practice of being kind and understanding to ourselves when confronted with a personal flaw or failure, and traditionally we’re not very good at it.

Research shows that the No. 1 barrier to self-compassion is fear of being complacent and losing your edge. Yet all the research shows that’s not true. It’s just the opposite, meaning that self-compassion can lead to greater achievement than self-criticism ever could.

In fact, several studies have shown that self-compassion supports motivation and positive change. In a 2016 study researchers found that “self-compassion led to greater personal improvement, in part, through heightened acceptance,” and that focusing on self-compassion “spurs positive adjustment in the face of regrets.”

This is, of course, easier said than done. But the core to self-compassion is to avoid getting caught up in our mistakes and obsessing about them until we degrade ourselves, but rather to strive to let go of them so we can move onto the next productive action from a place of acceptance and clarity.

So how do we move forwards?

First: Make the choice that you’ll at least try a new approach to thinking about yourself. Commit to treating yourself more kindly — call it letting go of self-judgment, going easier on yourself, practicing self-compassion or whatever resonates most. 

One of the most portable and evidence-based practices for noticing our thoughts and learning to let them go is meditation.

You can also interrupt the spiral of negative self-talk by focusing your energy on something external that you care about, which can help you establish perspective and a sense of meaning beyond yourself. 

The second step to self-compassion is to meet your criticism with kindness. If your inner critic says, “You’re lazy and worthless,” respond with a reminder: “You’re doing your best” or “We all make mistakes.” 

But it’s step three, according to Dr. Brewer, that is most important if you want to make the shift sustainable in the long term: Make a deliberate, conscious effort to recognize the difference between how you feel when caught up in self-criticism, and how you feel when you can let go of it.

Think about it this way: How much better might it feel to take a breath after making a mistake, rather than berating ourselves? Maybe think about going to a friend and what they would reply to you if you started beating yourself up.

This is the linchpin of being kinder to ourselves: Practice what it feels like to treat yourself as you might treat a friend. In order to trade in self-abuse for self-compassion, it has to be a regular habit.

So the next time you’re on the verge of falling into a blame spiral, think of how you’d pull your friend back from falling in, and turn that effort inward. If it feels funny the first time, give it second, third and fourth tries.

And if you forget on the fifth, remember: Four tries is a lot better than zero.

Political, Rants&Rambles

Nine Lessons and No Carols: Brexit lesson 6

The huge problem for the UK with either reversion to WTO terms or with a standard free trade deal with the EU is in services.

This is the curious case of the dog that has largely failed to bark so far. The public needs to be aware of the big trade-offs that are coming next…or resentment when the next set of climbdowns begins will be off the scale.

So far, both during the referendum and since, the trade debate has been dominated by trade in goods, tariffs issues and some discussion of the impact on manufacturing supply chains of departing the Single Market and Customs Union.

Politicians find goods trade and tariffs easier to understand than services trade and the huge complexities of non tariff barriers in services sectors. They just do not understand the extent to which goods and services are bundled together and indissociable (when did you last buy a mobile phone outright rather than a service contract with a mobile phone attached).

They even more rarely grasp how incredibly tough it is to deliver freer cross border trade in services which, by definition, gets you deep into domestic sovereignty questions in a way which makes removing tariff barriers look easy.

And they understand even less that, however imperfect they think EU attempts at internal cross border services liberalisation might be, anyone who has negotiated with the US, China, India, Japan or sundry others can tell them why far-reaching market-opening services deals are few and far between.

It isn’t going to happen.

As the Prime Minister gradually backed away from her original red lines, as she realised she would imperil large tracts of UK manufacturing if she persisted with it, the position softened on quasi Customs Union propositions. Hence the constant howls of betrayal from those who thought October 2016 and Lancaster House mapped the only true path to Brexit.

Her only way to seek to sell this politically – so far with very little sign of success – was to talk boldly about greater autonomy and divergence in services regulation.

The reality is that UK services’ industries needs have been sacrificed to the primary goal of ending free movement.

And post exit, and post the end of any transitional arrangement, it is UK services exporters who will face the starkest worsening of trade terms because of the substantial difference between how far services trade is liberalised under even the highly imperfect European services single market, and the very best that is achievable under any other form of free trade or regional agreement on the planet.

Yet it is in services sectors where the U.K. currently has a sizeable trade surplus with the EU, whereas in manufactured goods we have a huge deficit.

For all the imperfections of the Single Market, services trade between Member States is, in many sectors, freer than it is between the federal states of the US, or the states in Canada. The US Government is unable, even if it were willing, to deliver on commitments in many areas in international negotiations, just as it cannot bind its states on government procurement, on which many federal states are as protectionist as it gets.

Not that one ever hears a squeak on this from those who rail at EU protectionism.

But the extent and type of cross border free trade that exists in the Single Market, ceases when you leave. A very large proportion of cross border services trade conducted outside the Single Market only happens because firms have offices physically established in the countries to which they are exporting.

So we know already that cross border supply will diminish pretty radically post exit, and that ease of establishment of legal entities and ambitious deals on the temporary free movement of workers and on the mutual recognition of qualifications will be central to trying to sustain trade flows in much colder conditions, to limit the impact on the U.K. economy.

But a substantial hit on the balance of trade and on the public finances of substantial relocations out of the UK’s jurisdiction is guaranteed, because we have rendered the best mode of supplying services across borders far harder.

The implications are obvious. And again the public is not being told of them. Because the fiction has to be maintained – at least until a first deal is done – that there will be no sort of preferential free movement terms for EU citizens.

We stagger on, with the government constantly postponing the long promised White Paper on immigration post Brexit.

And after it eventually does get published, we know that, in reality, once the FTA negotiations truly get under way, and reality bites on the UK side, the policy, like so many others in the last 30 months, will simply disintegrate in the face of negotiating imperatives.

The EU already knows that the UK will, under whoever’s Premiership, be prepared to pay a heavy price to maintain better access to business, legal, consultancy, and financial services markets than other third countries have, to date, achieved via standard FTAs. Why? Because that’s an economic imperative for a country which has world class services capability, but needs market access.

That EU leverage will be deployed in the years ahead and it will be used to enforce deals on issues like fisheries, on which again referendum campaign commitments will be abandoned in the teeth  of reality.

Those saying this now will of course get the ritual denunciations for defeatism, lack of belief, treachery and whatever.

But just give it 2 more years. The Brexiteers, the strength of whose case to the public always resided, as I say, in saying to the public that their leaders had mis-sold them on what the EU was becoming, have now done their own mis-selling. And they are in the middle of the painful process of discovering that, as trade terms worsen on exit, which they denied would happen, they will, under economic duress, have to let down the very communities to whom they promised the post Brexit dividend.

That penny is dropping. Just very slowly.

Home

Lost and Found

I remain hugely grateful that John, the roofer, managed to fit us in before Christmas. The flat roof garage is now water-tight and ready for Winter and over the holiday, we managed to get most of the plants back up on top, somewhere.

Because the problem with doing this in Winter, and with a couple of guys who self-describe as “not gardeners, love” is that a lot of the plants seem to be missing, and not the ones you’d want to go missing.

In the Summer, there was an overabundance of plants. The roof looked positively busy and not always in a good way.

Summer Gravel Garden

The thugs were clearly taking over: mexican fleabane (erigeron) thrift, satureja spicergera and some geraniums.

But it’s all looking a bit bare now.

& I can’t work out whether that’s because it’s Winter and all of those plants will just pop up come Spring and Summer, or whether the driest Summer in memory has done for so many plants.

The basic lay-out is much the same as before with wooden boxes creating a frame on the outside of the roof but any wicker dividers in the middle have just been thrown away to create one large central bed. Where specific plants could be identified, they were laid down on tarpaulin. The remainder of the gravel/plant mix was chucked into plastic bags for the ease and speed of the project.

There was a surprising amount of blue grass to be found – must be tough as old boots – so on the way back up, all of that was just plonked in the centre of the roof where it has stayed like a mini island in the middle of all of that gravel.

As obvious plants came back up, they were planted into the boxes along the outside with the obvious thugs placed at the corners of the central bed. I am imagining that they will move forward like little armies, gradually swarming into the middle, skirmishing with each other along borders.

But of course, the dirt chucked back into the spaces between those plants may well be full of other plants (weeds obviously as well) so that barren battleground may already be occupied.

John was a great roofer but less obviously a gardener – who sticks soil back into a plot green and growing side down? So we did do our best to revisit the roof and turn over the obvious bulbs, to make them head first again. And eventually we got around to topping it all off with some fresh gravel.

Since fresh gravel just screams “neighbourhood litter tray” to cats, we’ve laid down some mesh as a deterrent. My cats do not look deterred.

My cats do not look deterred.

Political, Rants&Rambles

Nine lessons and No carols: Brexit lesson 5

If WTO terms or existing EU preferential deals are not good enough for the UK in major third country markets, they can’t be good enough for trade with our largest market.

You cannot simultaneously argue that it is perfectly fine to leave a deep free trade agreement with easily our largest export and import market for the next generation, and trade on WTO terms because that is how we and others trade with everyone else…

….AND argue that it is imperative we get out of the EU in order that we can strike preferential trade deals with large parts of the rest of the world, because the existing terms on which we trade with the rest of the world are intolerable.

If moving beyond WTO terms with major markets represents a major step FORWARD in liberalising trade, then deliberately moving back to WTO terms from an existing deep preferential agreement – which is what the Single Market is – represents a major step BACKWARD to less free trade. You really can’t have it both ways.

Though obviously many can and do try to argue that black is white and vice versa. But it is well beyond incoherent.

It is fine and legitimate to argue that the UK should aim at a global lattice work of bilateral and plurilateral free trade deals. This is especially true in the current absence of any ability to drive forward major multilateral trade liberalisation, at a time when the US has turned inwards, and may indeed be setting about deliberalising trade, undermining the World Trade Organisation..

It is equally legitimate to argue that you only want free trade deals which stop well short of the intrusion on national sovereignty which Single Market harmonisation and mutual recognition via supranational legislation, adjudication and enforcement entails.

As long as one also recognises that all trade deals inevitable erode and trammel one’s sovereignty to some degree – often to a significant degree.

Binding international commitments to opening each other’s markets – on goods, services, government procurement, whatever – seriously limit one’s capacity to regulate sectors of the economy as one might ideally see fit.

Genuinely free global trade actually seriously trammels national sovereignty. This should be obvious to everyone – it is not news.

Possibly the greatest reason to be a passionate free trader is to curtails the ability of myopic politicians to erect barriers to commerce in the name of sovereignty and national preference against non-national producers.

This is why our current debate on sovereignty and “taking back control” is often so bizarre. It is comical listening to Right wing populist politicians claiming they are avid free traders and simultaneously saying that one of the purposes of taking back control is to be able to rig domestic markets / competitions in favour of British suppliers / producers.

Protectionism is always someone else’s sin, of course.

And the Tory Party has been through these – decades-long – spasms before. Joseph Chamberlain’s Tariff Reform and Imperial Preference campaign, as loudly pious, nationalist and messianic as many today, led all the way through to his son Neville’s protectionist legislation of the early 1930s which helped worsen a post financial crisis economy. Sound familiar?

A post Brexit Britain which is committed to openness and free trade will need first of all to run hard to stand still, as 2/3 of UK exports are currently either to the EU or to countries with whom the EU has a preferential trade deal, which we shall have first to try and roll over.

Market access into the EU WILL worsen, whatever post exit deal we eventually strike. And the quantum by which our trade flows with the EU will diminish – and that impacts immediately – will outweigh the economic impact of greater market opening which we have to aim to achieve over time in other markets, where the impact will not be immediate but incremental.

As the country debates its future trade policy in the next stage of negotiations both with the EU and with other sizeable markets it needs honesty from politicians that trade agreements take a long time.

That even if every one we aspire to were completed, this will have a really very modest impact on overall UK economic performance.

And that every version of Brexit involves a worsening of the UK’s trade position and a loss of market access to its largest market. As we strive to limit the extent of that worsening, public debate will have to be serious about what the real trade-offs are. Because the EU will be quite brutal in teaching us them.

Meanwhile, before we have even left, we have seen, in the last 2 ½ years, the most anaemic boost to UK net trade triggered by ANY major sterling devaluation since World War 2. For politicians not completely blinded by their own rhetoric, the warning signs for the UK economy as we worsen our trade terms with the Continent are there to see. Again, public debate needs to be based on the realities, not on fantasy. Or the reality will soon catch up with us.

Home

Talking About Money

Couples can fight about anything, but arguments about money have a tendency to be particularly toxic, since they’re layered with deep emotional and personal history.

In fact, researchers have shown there’s a direct relationship between the number of times a couple has argued about their budget per month and their divorce rate.

Despite this, or maybe because of it, people tend to avoid financial talks with their partner. While standard marital advice has us studiously marking out “date nights” on the calendar to keep passion alive, there’s no phrase for scheduling nights to preserve fiscal harmony. We need to invent some new traditions.

Our attitudes about money begin in childhood, starting with your parents’ behavior around spending and saving, according to the experts.

My drive to financial independence formed as a kid found comfort in building up a financial safety net, a rather obsessive need to count the pennies and be on top of every bank account and budget, fostered by training as an accountant. My partners bone-grindingly poor childhood has left him unable to even contemplate our finances without a built up of anxiety. He will never feel himself to be financially secure whatever the financial reality. Conversations about retirement and pensions can be fraught.

“Your first money memories were created when you understood money was more than just a toy,” said Suze Orman, the financial expert and author of “The Money Class.” After that moment, your attitude became shaped by a series of firsts, including your first allowance, first paycheck, first big-ticket purchase, first major money loss and so on. Understanding our financial history is a key step in achieving financial harmony with another person.

In other words, just as you exchanged your romantic history with your partner, share your back story when it comes to money.D

Money, like sex, is an intimate subject, and we’re coached from an early age to be secretive about it. It’s hard to break that habit and let someone else in, and inviting another person into your pocketbook can mean risking judgment. (“You spend how much on avocado toast?!”)

Revealing your finances also means losing some autonomy. Many of us see our bank balance as the ultimate achievement of independence. But while sharing this information may make you vulnerable and accountable, you’ll also gain a new openness in your relationship.

Consider financial date nights as a moment to unburden yourself. In these discussions, “fear, shame and anger are the three internal obstacles,” Ms. Orman said.

These feelings can multiply, leading to “cycles of shame and spending.” (Picture a closet full of unused Amazon purchases or an online poker habit.) But voicing that burden, and being met with acceptance and love from your partner, can put you on the path to healing.

If you’re on the receiving end of a confession from your partner, remember that having a common enemy is incredibly bonding. Teaming up to face something like student loan debt together can unite you, and these financial date nights give you the opportunity to be in the trenches together.

If you’ve found a system that works for you — like using only cash for purchases, money-tracking apps or a swear jar — don’t assume it will work for your spouse.

Gretchen Rubin, a habits expert and best-selling author, believes you should avoid the mentality that “if your spouse would just do it the way you did it, then problem solved.” Some of the deepest discords can occur when you shoehorn your approach onto your partner. It doesn’t work for sex and it won’t work for money.

Ms. Rubin has identified several character traits that shape people’s habits and perspectives. One of the trickiest is the “rebels” who want to buck the rules. While rebels won’t respond well to Excel spreadsheets and budgeting mandates, they can get on board with other approaches.

“Rebels like a challenge,” Ms. Rubin said. “They like to do things in unconventional ways. You could say to them: ‘Let’s do something crazy! Let’s try to spend $10 a day for the next three months!’” and they will eagerly get on board.

Another personality group, “questioners,” needs to do its own research before committing. Before signing up for an investment, for instance, a questioner might want to see a chart showing the compound interest the account would earn.

“Obligers” seek outer accountability, so framing a financial step as a way to set a positive example for their children could motivate them. Give your partner room to zero in on his or her own approach to your shared goals.

A budget can seem like drudgery: a forced diet on your spending buffet. But budgets aren’t just about reining in your wallet; they’re also about deciding where your money will go, road maps to shared destinations. So financial date nights or discussions should include talking about the dreams you’d like to realize with your income. What are you saving for?

“You should talk about your financial future,” Ms. Orman said. Escaping the weight of debt? A European getaway? A three-bedroom house? A pair of matching hoverboards? These are all dreams you can save toward.

Political, Rants&Rambles

Nine Lessons and no carols; Brexit lesson 4

It is just not possible or democratic to argue that only one Brexit destination is true, legitimate and represents the revealed “Will of the People” and that all other potential destinations outside the EU are “Brexit in Name Only”.

The public voted – in huge numbers – and the majority voted to “leave” and not to “remain”. That much is very clear. But people were not asked to give their reasons for voting “leave” or “remain”, and they were multifarious on both sides.

For decades, some of the staunchest standard bearers of the case for leaving the post Maastricht Treaty EU have made the case for staying in the so-called Single Market, remaining a signatory to the EEA Agreement but leaving the institutions of political and juridical integration of the Union.

Over the years there have been plenty of eurosceptic tomes – many very well argued, whether you agree with them or not – arguing that Maastricht, amplified by subsequent Treaties, represented the wrong turn in European integration, and that what we needed to do was to return to the essential mercantile ideas behind the internal market project and jettison U.K. adherence to the rest.

For many people, perhaps especially outside the metropolitan circles who obsess about post Brexit models, that sense of “we only ever joined a Common Market, but it’s turned into something very different and no-one in authority down in London ever asked us whether that is what we wanted” is actually probably the closest to capturing their reasons for voting “leave”.

One can’t now suddenly start denouncing such people as Quisling closet remainers who do not subscribe to the “only true path” Brexit. Let alone insist on public self-criticism from several senior politicians on the Right who themselves, within the last few years, have publicly espoused these views, and praised the Norwegian and Swiss models, the health of their democracies and their prosperity.

To be clear, this is not an argument for an EEA model as opposed to the current proposed deal. This is not the place or time to rehearse the arguments either for or against any single version of Brexit.

It is perhaps the place to deplore the way in which the substance of all the models is constantly distorted by those who seem to not understand them – opponents and proponents – and then have given them a few days’ thought – in a panic.

But the real objection here is to the style of argument espoused both by the pro “no deal” Right and by Downing Street which says that no other model but their own is a potentially legitimate interpretation of the Will of the People – which evidently only they can properly discern.

Both fervent leavers and fervent remainers as well as No 10 seem now to seek to delegitimise a priori every version of the world they don’t support.

As for the Prime Minister’s proposed model, the entire EU knows that where we have now reached derives from her putting the ending of free movement of people well above all other objectives, and privileging as near frictionless trade in goods as she can get over the interests of UK services sectors.

The EU are no doubt unsurprised by the former but surprised – sometimes gleefully by the latter, as it seems to point precisely to a deal skewed in their favour.

The UK has essentially sacrificed all ambition on services sectors in return for ending free movement, sold the latter as a boon (when amongst other things, it clearly diminishes the value of a UK passport), and presented the former as a regaining of sovereignty, when it guarantees a major loss of market access in much our largest export market.

Well, by all means argue for it. I fully accept that control of borders – albeit with much confusion about the bit we already have control over, but year after year fail, under this Government, to achieve any control of – was a central referendum issue.

But don’t argue it’s the only feasible Brexit. Or that it’s an economically rational one.

Of course the EU side will now back the Prime Minister in saying it is. They have done a great deal for themselves and they want it to stick. Who can blame them? It’s in their own interests after all.

Food, Fun, Home

Coffee

Over the years I have tried out many different ways of making a decent cup of coffee, from my inglorious youth spent quaffing instant *coffee* through to full on grind your own beans espresso.

It sounds obvious but is worth saying that each method tastes slightly different. I have never managed to make coffee in those metal stove top pots, so popular in Italy, without it tasting burned. Espresso always tastes a fraction forced or rushed.

A trip to Namibia reintroduced me to the speed and convenience of basic cafetiere coffee which is where I go for my first morning wake-up cup but there’s no doubt that speed comes with consequences. Cafetiere coffee is just too variable, sometimes weak, sometimes strong and often grainy.

Over Christmas I gained a new toy, a bodum vacuum coffee maker based on the old cona style stove top and it makes a wonderful smooth, controlled cup of coffee (or three). The drawback with this method is the volume – you can’t make a single cup easily.

But given how smooth it turns out, it seems worth setting up and running for morning coffee because waking up is always more than a one cup, one person affair.

And it is marvellously entertaining to sit and watch vacuum do its thing.

Water is put into the bottom pot and ground coffee on the top. It all sits on the hob and heats, relatively gently until the water starts to evaporate and rise up the funnel to the coffee grinds where it mixes. Once the water is almost gone, the heat is removed and the water is sucked back down through the funnel with the filter holding back the grinds.

Rants&Rambles

Patience

I do not think of myself as a patient person, which it turns out is a shame because patience is a virtue that makes people happier.

Patience, the ability to keep calm in the face of disappointment, distress or suffering, is a virtue that is worth cultivating. It is associated with a variety of positive health outcomes, such as reducing depression and other negative emotions. Researchers have also concluded that patient people exhibit more prosocial behaviors like empathy, and were more likely to display generosity and compassion.

A 2012 study in the Journal of Positive Psychology identified three distinct expressions of patience: 1. Interpersonal, which is maintaining calm when dealing with someone who is upset, angry or being a pest. 2. Life hardships, or finding the silver lining after a serious setback. And 3. Daily hassles, which is suppressing annoyance at delays or anything irritating that would inspire a snarky tweet.

I’m ok with (1) and (2) but rubbish at (3). The good news is that is that same study found that patience as a personality trait is modifiable so whilst I can congratulate myself for the first two types of patience, it is entirely possible, old as I am, to work on the third. Even if you’re not a particularly patient person today, there’s apparently still hope you can be a more patient person tomorrow.

Impatience is the “fight” component of the fight-or-flight response, according to M.J. Ryan, executive coach and author of The Power of Patience: How This Old-Fashioned Virtue Can Improve Your Life. “That’s why you’re beeping your horn at people in the car or getting annoyed in the queue or whatever it is you’re doing that’s your impatient behavior,” she said.

Amygdalae are the culprit. This almond-shaped set of nervous tissue in our brains is responsible for sussing out threats and regulating emotions. While this component of the limbic system is perfectly calibrated for protecting our ancestors from ferocious predators, it’s not as adept at determining credible threats in modern life. Sometimes it feels as if we interpret threats to our status e.g.. who gets served first or fastest in a restaurant, as more life threatening events.

Because we are poorly set up physically to differentiate between types of threat, we can overreact. The amygdala, Ms. Ryan said, is too unsophisticated to know the difference between a true danger (say, a growling tiger) and something substantially less life-threatening (dealing with an obnoxious person).

Figure out which situations set you off — careless drivers, technological glitches, slow-moving cashiers, slow service in a restaurant etc. — and you’re already on your way to taking control.

Next, think about what thought or suspicion sets off the alarm bells in your brain. “There’s something that you’re either saying to yourself, an image you have, a feeling in your body that is triggering that response, that you’re under threat,” Ms. Ryan said.

Once you figure out what you’re telling yourself about the situation — “I can’t be bothered to wait in this queue,” for example — then you can address your internal concern, interrupt the stress response cycle and stay out of fight-or-flight mode. For example: If standing in a long queue drives you crazy, an appropriate mantra might be, “I’m in no rush at the moment.” For those who blow a fuse circling for parking spaces, a mantra that might work could be, “I’ll find a spot eventually.”

The idea is to take a step back from the situation and try to look at it as objectively as you can. Is waiting in this long queue inconvenient? Sure, but be realistic and practical: It will soon pass, and, in all likelihood, you’ll forget it ever happened.

Next, spend a beat thinking about the worst case scenario. What’s the actual consequence of standing in the queue at the bank another 10 minutes or restarting a finicky device? Do any of these outcomes constitute a life-or-death threat? “Almost always, always, always, no is the answer,” Ms. Ryan said.

Sarah A. Schnitker, an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University and a leading researcher on the topic of patience, suggests using a powerful technique called cognitive reappraisal, which means thinking about a situation differently.

Take, for example, someone aggravated with a nitpicky co-worker. Instead of dwelling on your irritation, you could think about the times you’ve been the one who has frustrated others.

“Give grace to each other,” Dr. Schnitker said. Or perhaps more difficult to achieve, try to think, “you know what, this is actually helping me to grow as a person.” This could be as simple as acknowledging that the slow elderly lady ahead of you in the queue is just struggling with age, the need to connect meaningfully with another person within a lonely life, the physical disability that comes with arthritic fingers or failing eyesight counting out coins – and we will hopefully all grow old and expect to be treated kindly.

Another strategy she recommends is to focus on why and how patience is integral to your values.

“For instance,” Dr. Schnitker said, “if I were talking to a parent who is struggling with their kid, I’d say, ‘Well, first, let’s think about the really big picture: Why is being a parent an important role to you? What does that mean in your life?’”

Thinking about how patience ties into your larger sense of integrity and poise “will make it a whole lot easier to stick with practicing patience on a daily basis and building up those skills,” she added.

Perhaps the most common mistake people make is thinking sheer will can turn them into a more patient person, Dr. Schnitker said. If you do that, she cautions, you’re setting yourself up to fail. Just as marathon runners don’t run a marathon on their first day of hitting the trails, people who are serious about cultivating patience shouldn’t expect immediate results.

“You want to train, not try, for patience,” she said. “It’s important to do it habitually.”

She suggests practicing patience during less intense, even silly situations when the stakes aren’t so high. Reappraise a situation next time you notice you’re feeling short-tempered, practice mindfulness meditation or say your own custom mantra.“It’s like any other skill,” Dr. Schnitker said. “If you do it on a daily basis and then also connect it to that bigger picture story of why it’s important, it can grow and develop just like a muscle.”

Now that you know your triggers and are working on staying out of fight-or-flight mode, incorporate some stress reduction measures. If your impatience trigger is killing time in waiting rooms, designate a game on your phone that you play only when you’re at the doctor’s office. If you detest being in traffic, leave for appointments earlier. If you abhor crowded grocery stores, run your errands at off-hours.

Finally, Nedra Glover Tawwab, a licensed clinical social worker based in Charlotte, N.C., recommends being more sensible about setting achievable aims.

“Sometimes we overbook ourselves or we don’t allot enough time to do things,” she said. “Be reasonable in setting your own goals for yourself because there’s only so many things that you can do in a time frame or any day. ”If your to-do list has 10 items on it but you can only reasonably accomplish five, then you’re sabotaging yourself. Any inconvenience has the potential to throw you off-track when your day is planned down to the minute.

“I can’t fast forward time and I can’t make people move faster,” she said. “I can’t manipulate those things; the only thing I can manipulate is me.”