Global passports are a symbol of global Britain
It’s hard to think of a better symbol for Brexit Britain. The Government is to restore the patriotic blue colour of our passports and save money at the same time – by outsourcing part of their production to France and the Netherlands. At a moment when Donald Trump has just imposed $50 billion of tariffs on China, what country other than Britain could possibly come up with such a creative way to signal its openness?
Naturally, we are self-effacing about this inspired idea. The culture minister Matthew Hancock even tried to blame EU procurement rules for the fact that the Home Office did not discriminate between bidders based on their nationalities. But he’s too modest: France has banned foreign production of its passports on “national security” grounds. Our Government is content for only the blank document’s security features to be added in Britain.
De La Rue, the British contender, is threatening to sue. And Parliament’s free-traders have quickly found the limit of their support for real-life free trade. “We are free-marketeers,” claims Jacob Rees-mogg, “but this is of symbolic importance. They should be British-made.” Mr Rees-mogg should take heart. The symbolism of the Government’s decision is wonderfully appropriate. It shows how cost-efficient patriotism is: the 10-year contract will save taxpayers £120 million over its lifetime. It shows that funding national pride is, if not quite colour-blind, country-blind.
He’s also right that these documents are symbolic. That is why the EU likes them to be burgundy, but also why it doesn’t force countries to make them so. It’s why, 30 years ago, the Thatcher government made them burgundy anyway, to show goodwill. It’s why some people are so passionate about switching them back.
It’s also why Theresa May should stick to her guns. The deal will surely help keep the lorries flowing through Calais. If anyone tries to stop them, their drivers can just try the Jeremy Clarkson passport trick. Stopped for speeding in Colorado, he took his out and read aloud from the first page: “Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance.” I suggest the new ones throw in an extra clause about their movement being “free and frictionless”. What could possibly go wrong?
Letter-writers to this paper can always be trusted to notice any unwelcome deterioration in the English language.
The current debate centres on the use of “y” to make adjectives, so that, as Shirley Puckett of Tenterden, Kent, notes, “slippery” has become “slippy”, “crisp” is “crispy” and “dotted” now “dotty”.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to English. A friend who spent time living in East Africa once pointed out to me that “y” is often added to English words to make them into Swahili ones, so that a roundabout, for example, is a “kipilefti” – literally, a “keepy-lefty”. Bastardising foreign words in order to adopt them is a time-honoured tradition. But there’s no excuse for doing it within the same language.
The current trend bothering me most, however, isn’t the addition of “y”, but the dropping of “ly”. This began with the advertising industry. Apple was the first, with its invocation to “think big”. While not entirely kosher grammatically, this slogan at least has the excuse that “think” is an abstract action, so it is, perhaps, possible to “think” an adjective.
There is no excuse for the proliferation of this style, however. Modern ads are full of similar phraseology. “Eat colourful,” we are told. “Dress beautiful. Work easy. Travel safe.” Walking in the City one day, I came across a particularly inane offshoot of this trend. “Eat yourself pregnant!” the sign said. This gruesome command turned out to be an advert for a course in how to enhance one’s fertility through diet.
I had hoped that Donald Trump’s unique style showed that our allergy for the correct “ly” suffix might be coming to an end. When he appeared to invent the word “bigly” (“We’re going to win bigly”), he did at least seem to demonstrate his enthusiasm for adverbs. You can imagine my disappointment when it turned out he was actually saying “big league”.
This leaves one avenue for hope: the great popularity of the “ly” internet domain. Unfortunately, it’s often paired with quite unsuitable words, as in the website “bit.ly”. There are now more than a hundred start-ups using “ly” or “li”, but far too many are incorrect (“summ.ly”, “reach. ly” or the double adverb, “fast.ly”). And then there’s the grammar advice website “grammarly.com”, named thus even though “grammatical.ly” is still available. The only one to gain from this terrible development is Libya, which administers the “.ly” domain. Taking advantage of its situation, it has kept registration prices high. Free trade has no respect for grammar.
But rampant commercialism might help to preserve the countryside. Natural England is considering offering companies the chance to sponsor famous walking paths. The aptly named Andrew Sells, Natural England’s chairman, says it will help raise much-needed cash to maintain the trails. I’m all for it: Hadrian’s Wall’s, the Thames Water Path, Brand’s End, Cotswold Outdoor Way. The possibilities are endless.