No. 1: Is the Brexit referendum actually constitutional?

Posted by on

Letter to the London Review of Books, 24 January 2019

“David Runciman is right to conclude in his analysis of the Brexit impasse that the attempt to “combine parliamentary government with plebiscitary democracy has failed. The UK is faced not merely with s constitutional crisis, but with a constitutional breakdown. Together the referendum principle introduced by Harold Wilson and the Parliament Act invented by David Cameron and Nick Clegg – both made possible by an unwritten constitution – have torpedoed constitutional order.

“Runciman compares the present crisis to Suez, but that was political. Better comparisons might be with the abdication crisis of 1936 or the People’s Budget which led to the Parliament Act of 1911. But the Constitution was able to deal with both. The present situation is more intractable. Even if re it is somehow resolved the country will remain saddled with incompatible notions of legitimacy – the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the sovereignty of the popular will. The last time something like this happened was in 1688, when the lawful claims of the Crown clashed catastrophically with the lawful claims of Parliament. A constitutional convention might resolve the difficulty, but how would it be set up, by Parliament or by referendum?”

Bill Myers, Leicester

Tomorrow: my take on the constitutional mess created.

Can a racist still be a great scientist?

Posted by on

James Watson was jointly responsible for one of the greatest triumphs of 20th century science: the unravelling of the DNA molecule. But today his reputation, he is now 90 years old, lies in tatters. He believes black people are less intelligent than white people, and he has repeated this a new TV documentary. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where he was once director, has revoked all his titles and honours, the implication being that his racial views have tainted his work on DNA.

But it “makes no sense. Watson may be an unpleasant man (as I found when I interviewed him) with some nasty views, but what bearing does that have on his scientific discoveries? A DNA molecule is still a double helix.”. If Copernicus had been a rapist, the Earth would still orbit the Sun. It’s trickier when it comes to judging the art of discredited artists – Roman Polanski, say, or Eric Gill – since “their work is all about value”. But science is, or should be, value-free and impersonal. Watson is “a fantastically irritating man who happened to be the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure. No more needs be said.” (Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times, reproduced in The Week, 26 January 2019)

If Epicureanism is about tolerance, kindness and acceptance and the pleasant life one might conclude that Watson should be excluded from any Epicurean garden. As the writer says, “not a nice man”. I don’t know whether Watson claims any scientific basis for his comments, or whether they just reflect his personal racist bias, but I rather agree with the journalist, Mr. Appleyard. Shun the man, let him know the vast majority of the world disagrees with his views, and why; don’t invite him home; write a critique of his words. But to revoke all the titles and honours is over the top. In a hundred years time he will only be remembered, along with other great scientists, for his research and scientific break-through, which will have benefitted medical science in ways we can only barely grasp at the moment. He has done more for the people of the world than the vast majority of us. Let it drop.

Why Liberal Republicanism is an oxymoron: A response to David Frum

Posted by on

The Atlantic’s David Frum is one of my favourite American columnists. A thoughtful conservative and provocative Trump critic, Frum doesn’t shy away from eviscerating both the Right and the Left. In contrast to ever-increasing partisanship, Frum’s independence of thought and lack of partisanship makes for refreshing reading.

Last November, Frum made the comprehensive case for a post-Trump GOP that embraces liberal values, which he broadly defined as a dedication to individual freedom, free trade and a commitment to preserving the integrity of America’s institutions.  He argued that the Republican Party is pursuing policies that can’t compete democratically: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, the Republicans lost the House in 2018, and demographic changes will render the Republicans unelectable in their present form. As the world’s only superpower, America has a moral responsibility to uphold liberal values on the world stage. Just as interestingly, Frum sees the Democrats’ leftward drift as an opportunity for Republicans to seize the liberal centre ground; most Americans still care about border security and the budget deficit.

Unfortunately for Frum and liberal-leaning conservatives, the Republican Party will not become liberal for the foreseeable future. The party nominated presidential candidates that notionally agreed with American liberalism in 2008 and 2012, with McCain and Romney respectively, and they both lost to a more liberal Obama. Republican elites told their base they had to compromise to win. They compromised, and lost. Then in 2016, grassroots Republicans revolted against the party establishment and nominated Trump, who went on to become president. If liberal conservatism was synonymous with electability, that wouldn’t have happened. For Republicans to change, they are going to have to first lose heavily, with their illiberalism as an obvious electoral liability.

More importantly, conservative commentators like Frum are far more liberal than Republican voters, and have been since at least the George H.W. Bush years. Grassroots Republicans don’t care about free trade, which is why Trump’s protectionism was so appealing. Nor are they interested in upholding liberal values on the world stage. Trump’s America First foreign policy, which is based on American economic and security interests, is much more popular than pre-Trump Republican neoconservatism. Immigration reform, a big priority for congressional Republicans, is bitterly opposed by Republican primary voters. Most Republicans care less about the size of government, and more about who it works for. Nationalism, not liberalism, is the defining trait of American conservatives. If liberal commentators like Frum can’t live with that, they need to leave the Republican Party permanently.

If Frum believes in liberalism, his best hope is to support the Democratic Party, which takes the liberal position on the vast majority of issues. Amongst Democrats, Frum can fight against the illiberal aspects of the party he opposes- the obsession with group identity over collective unity and individual liberty, and the big-state socialism of the party’s Sanders wing. He and other liberal conservatives have a far better chance of defeating identity politics and socialism in the Democratic Party than they do defeating nationalism in the Republican Party. While identity politics and socialism have only been prominent features of Democratic political culture recently, nationalism has long been a core aspect of American conservatism, even before Trump. Neoconservatism may have had liberal roots, but it was justified to the masses using nationalistic rhetoric. The GOP’s fiscal conservatism had nationalist appeal; white voters’ support for welfare declined when dog-whistle messages about free-loading minorities were used. Republicans have won elections primarily by defining the nation against a foreign threat- communists, Islamic extremists, and now immigrants. The GOP aversion to liberalism didn’t start with Trump, and it won’t end when Trump is gone. The sooner Frum realises this and renounces the American conservative movement, the better.

 

How can this be right?

Posted by on

President Trump has named a former Fox News journalist with no background in international relations as his pick for America’s new ambassador to the UN. The crucial role – which former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley will be leaving at the end of the year – has previously gone to scholars, diplomats or experienced politicians. Heather Nauert, by contrast, was an anchor on Fox – the fiercely right-wing network regularly watched by Trump – before becoming spokesperson for the State Department last year. In that capacity she made headlines in June for citing the D-Day landings in the Second World War as an example of America’s “strong relationship” with Germany (sic). (The Week, December 15, 2018)

There are some Americans whose level of general knowledge is pathetic, who know no history or geography, or anything much really, and despise those who worked and learned something. These people can go on Fox News (or Misinformation) channel and can say the first (usually derogatory) thing that comes into their heads, because there is no one around who knows enough to hold them to account. And even if they did, lying and misrepresentstation is just fine with most viewers, it seems, who regard the knowledgeable as snobs. The talking heads on the Misinformation Channel are now the the people who currently call the shots in the United States.

To appoint Heather Neuart to the United Nations is an insult to United Nations and an embarrassment to those who believe in international cooperation. Epicurus shut himself away in his garden and talked philosophy when politics got really bad. Unfortunately, it is more difficult to avoid the noise these days.

A second British referendum?

Posted by on

To The Times
The headline of your leading article, that May’s deal is the “Least Bad Option”, is questionable. Many are deeply wary of a People’s Vote, not least because the decision by the previous prime minister to hold the referendum was made in an attempt to paper over the divisions in the Conservative Party. Two years have elapsed since that vote and people are now much better informed about the likely consequences of leaving the EU. Today citizens can see, as your article stated, that there is no Brexit that could ever meet the wild promises of the Leave campaign.

A People’s Vote would be decided by an electorate with a much better understanding of what Brexit might mean, and thus the result would be better respected. (Angus McNeilage, Blackham, East Sussex)

My reaction: It would be nice if Mr. McNeilage were correct, but the counter argument is that the pro-EU result of the new referendum would have to result in a massive Remain win, otherwise the Leavers would demand a third vote to decide the matter, and that is simply not workable.

Secondly, it isn’t clear that a decisive vote exists to remain. Those who voted to leave had other agendas than dissatisfaction with the EU itself. Most notably, regions far away from prosperous London are deeply angry about the mismanagement of the economy, the lack of jobs in the North, the cutting of services, the shrivelling of local government and the London-centric preoccupations of the political class. The ire is directed at the EU; the trouble stems from Tory misrule, constant cuts, lack of accountability, and of care for the population as a whole. I am not sure that a second referendum would produce the result I would personally prefer.