While Brexit is only in the Limbo circle, Martin Wolf seems already convinced that all ye who entered there should shed all illusion and abandon all hope.

Sir, again Martin Wolf writes as if being convinced there’s no life, at least no good life for Britain, after Brexit. “Britain has more illusions to shed on Brexit” December 15.

Why? Of course Brexit is challenging, but not only for Britain. I have always thought of Britain as glue that helps holds the European Union together, so I am sure Brexit must be very challenging to EU too.

What should be done? I would just go for it! Massive government tweeting: “Brexit is not about Britain not wanting to have anything to do with Europe. It has all to do with Britain not being comfortable with the decisions of the EU technocracy.”

And then tweet: If Britain is willing to pay such a large fine for being able to get out of the EU club, should you, as members of that same club not be concerned with that?

And incite the Europeans to take the Brexit opportunity for together with Britain redefining a better Europe.

Sir, I argue this as I am convinced that if you’ve already mentally surrendered, and think you must accept any conditions offered by a Neo-Versailles treaty, then you are really lost. And for many reasons I do not like that to happen to Britain.

Or as Violet Crawley would say, don't be so defeatist, it’s so middle class. 

Okay, I might have gone bonkers on this (too), but let me assure you that Martin Wolf is no Winston Churchill either.

PS. Freshening up on Dante’s “Inferno” I read that some sinners endure lesser torments than do “those consigned for committing acts of violence and fraud”. The latter, according to Dorothy L. Sayers’ translation, were guilty of "abuse of the specifically human faculty of reason". Oops, could that include bank regulators who require banks to hold more capital against what is perceived risky, when in fact it is when something perceived safe ends up being risky, that we all most need our banks to hold that?

Sorry, just asking, I have no intention of wanting to send for instance Mario Draghi to hell. Parading him down our main avenues wearing a dunce cap would suffice.

@PerKurowski

Free Greece from regulatory shackles that make banks finance more the safer past & present than the riskier tomorrow

Sir, when commenting on the tensions between a “eurogroup” of ministers and the IMF about how to solve the problem called Greece you, as you should, clearly argue in favor of some additional relief of that debt “overhang that can only depress confidence”, “The IMF should stay in the Greek rescue squad”. October 12.

The problem though is that even if all Greece’s debt was condoned, but bank regulations stayed the same, that nation would just repeat its and most other countries’ recent mistakes.

Sir, nothing expresses a more depressed confidence in tomorrow as Basel’s risk-weighted capital requirements for banks. If Greece, and all the rest, is not freed from it, its banks have no chance of allocating credit so as to achieve a sturdy and sustainable growth. And besides if such growth does not happen, the banks’ own stability is also endangered.

That Europe, IMF, and the rest of regulators, do still seem to be unaware of what nasty effects their current bank regulations produce, is just amazing. Or perhaps they are all aware of it, but, with a little help from their friends, like FT, are just circling their wagons in order to defend their little mutual admiration club of technocrats.

There should be claw-back clauses for failed regulators and blind journalists (and editors) too!

@PerKurowski ©

IMF cannot be the independent central bankers' clubhouse

Sir, In your editorial "What is the IMF for?" (September 1), you qualify the original formulas used to assign the quotas determining responsibilities of nations to deposit cash and the rights to borrow it as "arcane". Yet you seem to favour a recalculation that will just produce a reshuffling of the local interests. In a world where we see multinationals getting rid of their "home country", it might instead be time to introduce some representation in the International Monetary Fund that is not bound by pure arcane geographical considerations.

You mention a lack of credibility and legitimacy but seem to believe this could be solved by giving the professional staff a free rein. It is much more difficult than that. One of the reasons the IMF has lost credibility is in fact the mistakes of its staff and these go much further than the handling of the Argentine debt crisis. If you take a closer look, you will find them backtracking on so many of their "cast-in-iron" policies. The world needs not less accountability in the IMF, but much more.

In my view the Fund's problem is that it has now turned into the clubhouse of the "independent" central bankers. What instead we need the IMF to do is to open up its executive board and diversify the recruitment of its staff so there is a better chance for the board to have a healthier perspective of what the IMF's role should be.

Though I agree completely with you that the top job should not be reserved for a European, since "he must now defend interests wider than those that put him in place", may I also advance the idea that it should not be reserved for a central banker either?

Published in FT, September 5, 2006