Abrogate! Abrogate!

Philip Collins writing in The Times 18 October 2016, admonishes us for being very silly to have voted leave the EU and even sillier for trying to do so. He makes another, depressingly familiar and defeatist, pitch that since it is going to be very difficult to leave we had better stay after all

He paints a picture of a “fabulously complicated” situation but I think he means “complex.”  A driverless train is a complicated system but riding it, if you can find a seat, is simple. On the other hand, the EU is a complex organisation in which there are multiple stakeholders and considerable interdependence.  In the EU, a single universal course of action, one size fits all, is unlikely to provide a practicable solution.  Adapting a complex system such as the EU would require truly visionary insight of all the laws, procedures, practices, protocols which have progressively taken over our lives and from which we have voted to divest ourselves.  I would not say it could not be done but maybe not in current lifetimes.

Which is why his “half-way house,” suggestion of interim membership of the EEA is so illogical.  Creeping for the cover of the EEA merely postpones tackling the real issues, the reason for which we voted to leave. We need a clean break and a clean sheet of paper. As the Daleks might cry, “abrogate, abrogate!”

Rage on the Right

In a somewhat hysterical leading article today (14 November 2016), The Times claims that “a surge in support for populist and nativist movements threatens the prosperity, values and collective security of the West.”  It is argued that the common ground of these movements is a revolt against openness and integration.  Quite so, and what the article shows is that the introverted pursuit of “liberal values” by the governing classes in Washington and Brussels is precisely what is fuelling the revolt but they, for they are surely all in it together, just don’t get it!

Only the economically illiterate would dispute the benefits to global prosperity brought about by free trade.  But globalised trade requires globalised labour mobility.  In the human hierarchy of needs liberal values and being nice to other people only feature at the top of the pyramid, long after the fundamentals of safety and security have been satisfied.  The trouble is, our technocratic ruling elite are comfortable in their general security needs and, apparently, blind to that deficiency in others.  Worse, their empirical world of evidence-based argument is always ready with a supporting answer which usually boils down to a patronising “we know best.”  We all know, from a succession of expert forecasting blunders, that “they” seldom know best.  Indeed, expert predictions are not, necessarily, inevitabilities.  Who would have given the British Empire a chance in 1940 – only those with a faith in human spirit to overcome and shape our own destiny? The same argument should be deployed against the seemingly endless stream of data designed to undermine our exit from the EU and foment mischief about our commitment to collective defence.

To say, patronisingly, that “there is much that democratic governments need to do to alleviate the inequalities that have given plausibility to nationalism and nativism,” is to state the blindingly obvious but to recommend that “democratic movements have an obligation to face down what is happening to Western societies,” is Orwellian indeed.

The Times and others wringing their hands over the rebuff to their cosy authority should recognise the human needs for family, security and, yes, nationhood otherwise that, indeed, will be a mistake of grievous consequences.