The strange hybrid of Findhorn

How an intentional community can never be a world apart

We have an estate agent’s ‘For Sale’ notice up next to one of the big eco-houses here in the community. Big deal, you might say, isn’t this the normal way people sell houses? Well, in intentional communities, in fact it is not.

Think about it. An intentional community is a place where people with a shared base of values or common commitment to a project or ideology choose to live in the same place. How does that idea stack up with the reality of the market economy as mediated by the estate agents? The theory of intentional community is that the housing stock is allocated according to the needs of the community and the worth or contribution of the members. The market, of course, recognises only purchasing power.

To understand how we have reached this interesting juncture, a little historical perspective is required. Traditionally, intentional communities were highly egalitarian and communitarian in nature. So, following the lead of the Israeli kibbutz, there was little or no private property and most of that was held in common. Income was divided equally or allocated according to need.

Over the last several decades, however, society has got economically wealthier and more individualistic and these trends have spilled over into intentional communities. So, in common with the broader society, communards now want to own more things and not to have to negotiate for their use with those among whom they live.

In consequence, with some noble exceptions, the economies of intentional communities have become more or less privatised. Communards today are generally responsible for making their own income and what they earn, they keep. Findhorn, in fact, is a fascinating mix of the old and the new. At the heart of the community remains a more or less common economy – comprising about a third of the community, around 120 people – with a highly egalitarian ethic. Most of us, however, are responsible for making our income where we can.

When land here in the community came up for development in the early 1990s, the communal heart of the community had neither the cash nor the desire to develop it – its core purpose, after all, is education and spiritual enquiry, not real estate development! So, the land was parcelled up in plots that were sold to those who could afford to build.

Today, as a result we have a field covered in beautiful and highly energy-efficient houses. However, those who can afford to build ain’t necessarily those who have put in years of devoted love and care to make this such a great place to live – though, sometimes they are. Also, we lose control over future allocation of housing when those who built think it is time to move on. This has put a certain strain on the fabric of the community.

The first time a For Sale notice went up, I was very much involved personally. I had been part of a group renting a beautiful big house for a couple of years when its owner decided it was time to cash in her chips. It was not easy showing strangers around what felt very much like my home. One couple from London who were just passing saw the sign and asked how much it cost. £280,000, I almost spat out, in disgust that anyone could have access to so much capital. ‘What!!’, the woman exclaimed, barely able to contain her disbelief, sharing I imaged my own incredulity at the exorbitant price. She finally managed to catch her breath and finish her sentence: ‘So LITTLE!’

I heard a visitor recently compare Findhorn to a medieval village, with a monastery at the centre with a village clustered around it. This feels like a very appropriate metaphor. We are a strange hybrid.

Jonathan Dawson is a sustainability educator based at the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland. He is seeking to weave some of the wisdom accrued in 20 years of working in Africa into more sustainable and joyful ways of living here in Europe. Jonathan is also a gardener and a story-teller and is President of the Global Ecovillage Network.
Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Tusk is merely calling out Tory hypocrisy on Brexit

And the President of the European Council has the upper hand. 

The pair of numbers that have driven the discussion about our future relationship with the EU since the referendum have been 48 to 52. 

"The majority have spoken", cry the Leavers. "It’s time to tell the EU what we want and get out." However, even as they push for triggering the process early next year, the President of the European Council Donald Tusk’s reply to a letter from Tory MPs, where he blamed British voters for the uncertain futures of expats, is a long overdue reminder that another pair of numbers will, from now on, dominate proceedings.

27 to 1.

For all the media speculation around Brexit in the past few months, over what kind of deal the government will decide to be seek from any future relationship, it is incredible just how little time and thought has been given to the fact that once Article 50 is triggered, we will effectively be negotiating with 27 other partners, not just one.

Of course some countries hold more sway than others, due to their relative economic strength and population, but one of the great equalising achievements of the EU is that all of its member states have a voice. We need look no further than the last minute objections from just one federal entity within Belgium last month over CETA, the huge EU-Canada trade deal, to be reminded how difficult and important it is to build consensus.

Yet the Tories are failing spectacularly to understand this.

During his short trip to Strasbourg last week, David Davis at best ignored, and at worse angered, many of the people he will have to get on-side to secure a deal. Although he did meet Michel Barnier, the senior negotiator for the European Commission, and Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative at the future talks, he did not meet any representatives from the key Socialist Group in the European Parliament, nor the Parliament’s President, nor the Chair of its Constitutional Committee which will advise the Parliament on whether to ratify any future Brexit deal.

In parallel, Boris Johnson, to nobody’s surprise any more, continues to blunder from one debacle to the next, the most recent of which was to insult the Italians with glib remarks about prosecco sales.

On his side, Liam Fox caused astonishment by claiming that the EU would have to pay compensation to third countries across the world with which it has trade deals, to compensate them for Britain no longer being part of the EU with which they had signed their agreements!

And now, Theresa May has been embarrassingly rebuffed in her clumsy attempt to strike an early deal directly with Angela Merkel over the future residential status of EU citizens living and working in Britain and UK citizens in Europe. 

When May was campaigning to be Conservative party leader and thus PM, to appeal to the anti-european Tories, she argued that the future status of EU citizens would have to be part of the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Why then, four months later, are Tory MPs so quick to complain and call foul when Merkel and Tusk take the same position as May held in July? 

Because Theresa May has reversed her position. Our EU partners’ position remains the same - no negotiations before Article 50 is triggered and Britain sets out its stall. Merkel has said she can’t and won’t strike a pre-emptive deal.  In any case, she cannot make agreements on behalf of France,Netherlands and Austria, all of who have their own imminent elections to consider, let alone any other EU member. 

The hypocrisy of Tory MPs calling on the European Commission and national governments to end "the anxiety and uncertainty for UK and EU citizens living in one another's territories", while at the same time having caused and fuelled that same anxiety and uncertainty, has been called out by Tusk. 

With such an astounding level of Tory hypocrisy, incompetence and inconsistency, is it any wonder that our future negotiating partners are rapidly losing any residual goodwill towards the UK?

It is beholden on Theresa May’s government to start showing some awareness of the scale of the enormous task ahead, if the UK is to have any hope of striking a Brexit deal that is anything less than disastrous for Britain. The way they are handling this relatively simple issue does not augur well for the far more complex issues, involving difficult choices for Britain, that are looming on the horizon.

Richard Corbett is the Labour MEP for Yorkshire & Humber.