The three choices facing Brexit Britain

Posted by on

Regular readers of Epicurus Today will have noticed an increasingly frequent number of posts on Brexit. This is because we have reached a crucial point in the negotiations, whereby the terms of our departure have been agreed, and just need ratification from the British parliament.

The problem facing Britain’s lawmakers is that the country is incredibly fragmented and polarised in its attitudes towards Brexit. Some, including Robert and myself, strongly believe in staying in the EU, despite 52% of our fellow Britons having voted to leave it. Amongst Leavers, some wish to retain a relatively close relationship with the EU, akin to Norway or Switzerland, while others would prefer to be treated like a non-European country with only a simple trade deal with the EU, like Canada or Japan.

The point is, regardless of what you ideally believe Britain’s relationship with the EU ought to be, there are now only three options. Accept May’s deal, which diverges from the EU to a greater extent than Norway or Switzerland, but encompasses customs and regulatory agreements that go beyond a normal third country. Reject May’s deal, and leave with no deal at all, with perhaps only a few informal agreements to keep planes flying and food coming in. Or stay in the EU. There simply isn’t enough time to renegotiate with Brussels, regardless of who controls the government. And even if there was, the European Commission has explicitly refused to renegotiate, on the understandable basis that May’s agreement took over a year and a half to agree upon- reopening contentious policy areas would prove too costly and create too much uncertainty.

May’s deal has attracted immense criticism from both Leavers and Remainers, and it is very unlikely the deal will pass Parliament. For Remainers, the deal damages the economy by leaving the Single Market, which would create new barriers to capital and conducting business across Europe. They also hate the end to the free movement of people, which will exacerbate Britain’s acute skills shortages in industries like construction and healthcare, and deprive British people of the automatic right to live and work in Europe. Most Eurosceptics have an equal animosity towards the deal. It requires Britain to abide by EU-equivalent fiscal and regulatory policies, preventing a dramatic economic liberalisation some Conservative Brexiteers believe is necessary to thrive outside the EU. It keeps Britain subject to European Court of Justice rulings. And most significantly, if a means of averting a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland haven’t been agreed upon, a backstop is triggered, which would result in Northern Ireland being in a separate customs territory from the rest of the UK. Not only would such a backstop be economically damaging, it would undermine Britain’s status as a true union of nations.

Having said all that, May’s deal has a few benefits. Unlike a Norway or Canada-style deal, it ensures no hard border in Ireland. It provides a degree of certainty to businesses, particularly exporters, which is why the CBI supports the deal. It also achieves many of the objectives set out by Leave campaigners in 2016. It ends annual payments to the EU, even though the economic damage from Brexit and the cost of replicating EU regulatory bodies will massively outweigh the UK’s net contribution. It ends free movement, which I personally support but was a crucial cause of the Leave vote. It also leaves the EU’s common agriculture and fisheries policies, which are widely blamed for the decline of the rural economy.

But unfortunately for Theresa May, most people oppose her deal. Unfortunately for May’s Eurosceptic critics, most people also oppose leaving without a deal. As for Remainers, some polls show a majority in favour of staying in the EU. But support of Brexit has remained surprisingly persistent given how badly the negotiations have gone. The fundamental causes of Brexit- opposition to free movement, the belief the EU is an encroachment on national sovereignty, a feeling ordinary people aren’t listened to- haven’t gone away. The main problem facing Britain is that no single solution commands anything approaching a convincing majority of the public.

So what’s the solution? The first step is to oust Theresa May as Prime Minister and vote against her deal. The second step ought to be to put the three choices facing Britain to a referendum. Given the gridlock in parliament and the increasingly visible divisions in the country, as clearly seen by the thousands of left-wing and far-right protestors clashing in London last weekend, a referendum on the terms of Brexit is the only way to resolve this impasse. The referendum isn’t a perfect idea. It won’t resolve Britain’s divisions, which are with us for the foreseeable future. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, a significant proportion of people will be bitterly disappointed. I’m not advocating a new referendum because its a good idea, I’m advocating it because its the only way to move forward in a legitimate and orderly fashion. Forcing through May’s deal, using the prospect of crashing out as a threat, would be undemocratic and morally suspect. Leaving without a deal, without having consulted the people, would be equally heinous, because Leave voters were promised a Canada-style trade deal at the very least. And unilaterally deciding not to leave the EU would be a violation of the 2016 referendum, and would result in civil disorder and a collapse of trust in democracy. Rather, Britain needs a new referendum. I’ll be campaigning for one with as much vigour and urgency as I can muster.

 

One small point of light

Posted by on

Yesterday, the pound slumped below $1.26 to the lowest level since April 2017 after the prime minister said she cancelled the vote on her Brexit plan rather than see it rejected by a “significant margin”. Sterling was worth $1.2563 and €1.1062 late on Monday, and at time of writing its fortunes are little changed.

Nothing to do with Epicurus, but everything to do with the international view of Brexit and its effect on the UK. Not just shooting yourself in the foot – using a machine gun. Good for exports, though.

Why is big business silent over Brexit?

Posted by on

Entrepreneurs and small firms on both sides of the argument have spoken out freely about Brexit. So too have bosses of foreign-owned companies. But the “Trappist silence” maintained by many of the UK’s largest firms “has become deafening” – even though surveys suggest the majority of corporate bosses would prefer to stay in the EU and support a second referendum. One can understand their reasons for keeping quiet; they’re afraid of alienating politicians, their own people and their customers. No business leader wants to be accused of being “an enemy of the people” or of “improperly interfering in the democratic process”. And they don’t want to be labelled “defeatist” either.

Even so, directors are “required by law to disclose to stakeholders issues that affect investment, viability and jobs – and there are few bigger potential issues than Brexit”. It’s hard to see any of the generals of British business breaking their silence for a while yet. “But if Brexit goes ahead and does, indeed, prove a disaster”, they will have to explain to shareholders “why on earth they said nothing when they had the chance”. (Patrick Hosking, The Times, carried in The Week 17 Nov 2018).

Business silence is not the only silence. Britain badly needs a rapid realignment of politics, and quickly. On one side we have dangerous plotters, who lied to the people at the time of the referendum, are alleged to have taken Russian money for their misguided campaign, and who want to dismantle the welfare state. On the other hand we have a Labour party led by a Brexiteer stuck in the thought processes of the 1950s, and equally unsuitable as national leader.

Where are the Liberal Democrats and moderate Conservatives and Labour politicians? Why are they not forming a Patriotic Front to drop Brexit altogether and focus on the legitimate concerns of those outside the South East of England who feel ignored and powerless. This realignment might be disagreeable to some and might turn out to be temporary, but the future of the country is at stake, and much within the purview of all who espouse the teachings of Epicurus and who want peace of mind and a pleasant, un-fraught life, without turmoil and deprivation.

Why we stopped trusting elites

Posted by on

“At the heart of successful liberal democracies lies a remarkable collective leap of faith: that when public officials, reporters, experts and politicians share a piece of information, they are presumed to be doing so in an honest fashion,” writes William Davies, the sociologist and political economist. “To understand the crisis liberal democracy faces today – whether we identify this primarily in terms of populism or post-truth – it’s not enough to simply bemoan the rising cynicism of the public.

“The problem today is that, across a number of crucial areas of public life, the basic intuitions of populists have been repeatedly verified. One of the main contributors to this has been the spread of digital technology, creating vast data trails with the latent potential to contradict public statements, and even undermine entire public institutions. Whereas it is impossible to conclusively prove that a politician is morally innocent or that a news report is undistorted, it is far easier to demonstrate the opposite. Scandals, leaks, whistleblowing and revelations of fraud all serve to confirm our worst suspicions. While trust relies on a leap of faith, distrust is supported by ever-mounting piles of evidence. And in Britain, this pile has been expanding much faster than many of us have been prepared to admit.”. (BBC News, Nov 29, 2018).

We have become cynical. We ascribe bad motives to too many in public life and simply assume they have their hands in the till. This blog has done its (small) best to spread that idea, I afraid. And yet the constant drip-drip of reporting from a score of sources has, over the course of years, embedded the idea that the very rich and the big corporations get – or pay for – their way at the expense of the rest of us. Meanwhile, as the investigation being pursued by Muller daily suggests, the American Administration, for one. is full of people with conflicts of interest or are prepared (for enough money) to connive with the nation’s enemies. Where do these people come from? Who “educated” them, brought them up? What did they learn, apart from “winning” being the only thing that matters?

Democracy always was a fragile flower, but the knowledge that you have a say and that those in power are on your side is all part of the idea promoted by Epicurus – that life should be pleasant, full of friends and happiness, without the need to constantly fear death or the overturning of your life at the whim of a self-absorbed, malevolent autocrat or an uninformed, resentful crowd. Fragile maybe, but a wonderful thing, however dependent on mutual goodwill.

Above all government has to be for ALL the people, inclusive and without favour. Such government is fading throughout the world, and the rich and powerful (with notable exceptions) do not seem to care. Those who study history understand the perilous position we are in and the ease with which our system can be (is being) subverted. Unfortunately, studying history “doesn’t get you a job”. I am at a loss…………

Pubs lose their popularity

Posted by on

“The way the British used to meet, we all used to go into a pub randomly with friends, everybody would get way too drunk, and three years later you’d wake up one morning and realise you had a boyfriend,” says Emily Hill, writing about the life of a single woman. Alcohol is an antidote to the stiff upper lip – it starts to wobble, feelings start to come out and sexual frisson starts to happen … I say this all the time, but dating apps have done to love and romance what machines did to humanity in Terminator 2.”

“The endless stream of strangers being served straight to your phone means it has never been easier to have no-strings-attached sex, if that’s what you’re looking for, writes G2’s Elle Hunt. The real problem is finding connection – today, Hill says, people are less likely to spend their Fridays mingling with friends of friends at their local, fostering, in weekly increments, the kind of attraction that might only come with time and familiarity. So is the decline of the British boozer coupled to young people having less sex?” (BBC 28 Nov 2018)

Yes, it seems to have become too quick and clinical: a visit online, a photo, an assignation, a hook-up – and little real connection. Well, at least the population growth has stalled, and will stall further with our climate woes. Nonetheless, it’s a pity. To go to the pub, with its banter, chatter and frequent camaraderie, is fun. It’s good for the community and good for the introverts who, without it, might meet nobody.

But now the tax on beer has made drinking that beer expensive. You cannot (rightly) drink and drive, and fewer people are in the bar. The only good things happening in the pub business are the greatly improved food and the bigger range of local ales with imaginitive names. The pub habit is still strong in London, where establishments are packed; outside London the small, independent-of-brewery-ownership pubs are disappearing. Add to this the the closure of high street shops and stagnant incomes and you have a depressing situation in small towns and villages in Britain, the outward signs of the dissatisfaction with life that has created the dreadful mess called “Brexit”. Epicurus believed in a pleasant life – too many people have been robbed of that pleasure.