So we seem to be in a bit of a stand off at the moment in regards Brexit, and it all seems to revolve around whether Boris will obey the Benn Act or not.
Part of the problem is that since the last deadline was brushed aside so readily the word "deadline" itself has now lost all meaning. No one, on either side, really believes it is a deadline. It can never be the last minute, as more minutes can always just be added.
Of course, this doubles the danger in a way. As if someone does start believing it's a deadline. Or takes advantage of the option to do so. Then the other side will be even less prepared for that than they otherwise would be.
So communication issues are a huge problem. (Or opportunity if you choose to see it that way.)
I have no idea what will happen. I don't even have a good inkling, which is unusual for me.
Apparently, according to Twitter anyway, Dominic Cummings is telling government advisers that if we get a "no" from Brussels this week we'll be gone. No deal. I've actually been reading more of the Cummings blog too. You tend to get a good sense of someone once you've read enough of what they've written (I think). The more I read the more I like him. That doesn't mean that he's right about everything of course, or that people in government will end up listening to him. It does provide some optimism though.
Irish border..
Another thing perhaps worth mentioning now that I think of it is the Irish border issue. Obviously this is the big sticking point at the moment. Personally I believe all the problems are completely solvable and that it's just an unwillingness on the part of remainers to embrace the solutions. Or a deliberate use of the issue to block Brexit full stop.
I do wonder if they're overplaying the issue though in a way that will backfire. I think British people in general are getting quite sick of it. Obviously the blame for the problems in Ireland are often placed on Britain, but whatever the root cause no one alive today can be blamed for the Reformation. So people are starting to think; "why is this our problem?", "why are we constantly getting the blame for what's happening in Ireland?". After all, it's not like Northern Ireland is filled with gold mines or massive oil reserves that are being shipped across the Irish Sea to line English pockets.
So perhaps all this will lead to a unified Ireland in the long run. Not because of the process in Northern Ireland itself, but more because English people will start saying "right, okay Ireland, okay EU, you have the problem. It's yours now. We're off".
It's slightly similar with Scotland. We constantly have to put up with the SNP blaming England for everything, but it just gets annoying and you stop even listening. You almost start willing them to become independent. It's sad really as England has a great shared heritage with Scotland (as all these islands do). I myself am part Scottish. In fact, most people will have forebears coming from all parts of these islands - what about our heritage being destroyed, tut, tut (!) Plus it's a bit silly to crave an independent unified island of Ireland, based on the fact that it is indeed an island, while at the same time dreaming of a dis-unified other island.
Scotland was a huge partner in empire era Britain, and it all had its beginnings pretty much when the Scottish King James VI took the English throne and started ruling English people. So it's never as simple as England bad, Scotland good. Or English bad, Irish good for that matter.
Again though, as I've stated before. Even if England is the big bad heart of the British Empire, and owner of all its failings. Nevertheless, as things stand, and as they have been in recent decades;
Britain is giving sovereignty back to its constituent parts. The EU is taking it away.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Friday, October 4, 2019
Rory Walks 'Round London
So Rory Stewart is leaving the Tory Party and standing down at the next election to run for mayor of London. He's now going to be walking around London apparently. Might be a bit of an eye-opener for him.
Thursday, October 3, 2019
Xenophobic Empires
Today I just want to briefly touch upon the idea that the drive to build empires and have a single unified polity is often driven by xenophobia. Normally we tend to think of xenophobia as being a driver towards nationalism - which in part it is. However, it also works in the opposite direction. Something which is often missed or forgotten.
The drive to have everyone living under the same system often stems from the natural human fear that "other" countries or groups will wage war on your group. Something which is perfectly rational to fear, as countries and groups do go to war with each other at times. So the feeling is; if we can get everyone under one umbrella this can't happen anymore.
It's an argument we often hear in relation to the EU of course. With it being claimed that the union is responsible for the decades of peace in Europe.
However, this attitude betrays a lack of trust and faith in other groups. It's essentially stating "we can't trust these people to have independence, as if we do they may use it aggressively to our disadvantage - so we need them subdued under a single system".
It's a little bit like saying; if only everyone was white we wouldn't have racism. It attempts to achieve harmony, but only through the eradication of differences. Rather than through a genuine toleration of differences.
So in a sense both nationalism and one-world-ism stem from similar human desires.
**********
(Yesterday I posted an article touching upon similar themes on my other blog;
https://birkhallsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/why-empires-fall-capital-suction.html
I even did some nice jazzy images for it. I'll get back to commenting upon everyday endless Brexit politics tomorrow. It feels like we're actually heading towards some kind of deal at the moment, but maybe I'm just needlessly getting my hopes up.)
The drive to have everyone living under the same system often stems from the natural human fear that "other" countries or groups will wage war on your group. Something which is perfectly rational to fear, as countries and groups do go to war with each other at times. So the feeling is; if we can get everyone under one umbrella this can't happen anymore.
It's an argument we often hear in relation to the EU of course. With it being claimed that the union is responsible for the decades of peace in Europe.
However, this attitude betrays a lack of trust and faith in other groups. It's essentially stating "we can't trust these people to have independence, as if we do they may use it aggressively to our disadvantage - so we need them subdued under a single system".
It's a little bit like saying; if only everyone was white we wouldn't have racism. It attempts to achieve harmony, but only through the eradication of differences. Rather than through a genuine toleration of differences.
So in a sense both nationalism and one-world-ism stem from similar human desires.
**********
(Yesterday I posted an article touching upon similar themes on my other blog;
https://birkhallsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/why-empires-fall-capital-suction.html
I even did some nice jazzy images for it. I'll get back to commenting upon everyday endless Brexit politics tomorrow. It feels like we're actually heading towards some kind of deal at the moment, but maybe I'm just needlessly getting my hopes up.)
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Boris Border Plan
It seems Boris now has a plan on the table, including a potential fix to the Irish border issue. We'll now see what the EU has to say about it. Could be an interesting next 3 or 4 days.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Free Movement in a Post-Brexit World
Freedom of movement is a beautiful concept, a noble ideal, and one of the big pluses in regard the EU. If not in a practical sense, then at least in its visionary scope.
Of course, the Brexit argument on face value appears to be a choice between national sovereignty without free movement, or federalisation with it. So I can totally understand why people on the remain side of the argument lament the loss of free movement that will come with Britain leaving.
However, there are ways of having free movement between nations without surrendering sovereignty. I'll briefly outline one way of doing this below. I'm calling it the Scott System, after myself cheekily :)
..the system
In this system two countries can agree to freedom of movement for a period of time, with it then being renewed or discontinued at the end of this period.
In my example I'm stating 10 years (though it could be anything). It would also be useful if this period began and ended at easily memorable dates in time.
In my example the first period begins; 1st January 2021.
And ends; 31st December 2030.
So, for example, Britain and Canada could agree to have complete free movement starting on this date. Then at the end of the period if it's working fine they could both simply renew it and continue for another 10 years, or if either is unhappy or feels it's not working discontinue it and end the free movement.
Within this you could then have rules and preconditions stipulating what the rights are for people that do go to live in the opposing country. In my system I would state that anyone who lives in the other country for 5 years automatically gets citizenship in that country.
So, if you go to live in Canada in 2022 you get full citizen rights if you're still living there in 2027 - regardless of whether free movement is renewed or cancelled in 2030.
However, let's say you go to live there in 2028 (two years before the deadline), you then go with the knowledge that if the arrangement isn't renewed your right to be there ends, and it's then at the discretion of the Canadian government to decide if and how long you stay. As it would be under standard (non-free movement) circumstances pretty much.
If they do continue the free movement though, and you're still there in 2033 then you get full citizenship after the 5 years. As in the previous example.
This way everyone knows where they stand, whatever happens. Unlike the EU now where there are no provisions for what happens to citizens if a country chooses to leave - as is that country's democratic right. With this way people understand what the potential circumstances are. So if they choose to take a job or buy a home in another country they know full well what opportunities/risks they're embracing.
Multiple Arrangements with Multiple Countries..
On top of this countries would be able to have such bilateral arrangements with as many other countries as they liked. So Britain could have free movement with, let's say, Canada, France and Germany (this is assuming they aren't in the EU and bound by its laws), while simultaneously Canada could have such arrangement with Britain, the US and Iceland.
British citizens would understand that they have the freedom to go to live and work in Canada, France, and Germany.
Canadian citizens would understand that they have the freedom to do the same in Britain, the US, and Iceland.
...However, Canadians wouldn't have the right to live and work in France and Germany. Nor would British people have the right to do this in the US or Iceland.
This may seem confusing at first, but it's no different to free movement now. Where British people understand they can work and travel in EU countries, but don't have the same rights when it comes to non-EU places such as the US or Turkey.
If all countries used the same dating period for their various bilateral agreements it would simplify things even more so.
Over time each country then could expand the number of countries they have these agreements with (if each country freely chooses to do so of course).
So, for example, Britain could agree to have free movement arrangements with Canada and the US starting on 1st January 2021. Then, after ten years if this is working and people are happy with it, agree to extra arrangements with say France or Mexico. Starting on 1st January 2031. And so on and so forth.
..how to stop people going to countries they're not supposed to be in.
Of course, people will ask; if countries have multiple agreements with multiple countries, how do you stop people going to countries that their country doesn't have an agreement with. For instance, if Britain and Canada have an agreement, and Canada and the US have an agreement, but the US and Britain doesn't have an agreement. How do you stop British people going to the US or vice versa.
Firstly, border checks could still take place. Obviously free movement suggests "completely borderless" to most people. However, checks at airports and borders are hardly a huge inconvenience. It's perfectly reasonable. We have to give our I.D. every time we buy alcohol at a supermarket. So, if you have the opportunity to go and work, live and potentially become a full citizen in another country having to show a passport at a border once in a while isn't really a hardship.
Secondly, and this is the real beauty of this system, as each country has the power to end free movement with a country at the end of the 10 year period they can use this as leverage. So, as in the example above, let's say the US are unhappy that British people are illegally coming to their country via Canada. They can then either end their free movement with Canada, or use the threat of this to get Canada to take action to respect their borders more. Canada, in turn, if they value their arrangement with the US, can then either control their borders better, end their free movement with Britain. Or use the threat of this to put pressure on Britain to get their people to respect the law more fully.
After all, it is about respecting the law of each country. And why would countries want to continue arrangements with countries and people that don't respect their country and their laws? In this system they would have the power to choose who they have free movement with and how long they continue this for. Meaning that if countries want the benefits of free movement they also need to show appreciation for the countries they're doing this with.
Personally I think this would be a much better, and more flexible, system.
Of course, the Brexit argument on face value appears to be a choice between national sovereignty without free movement, or federalisation with it. So I can totally understand why people on the remain side of the argument lament the loss of free movement that will come with Britain leaving.
However, there are ways of having free movement between nations without surrendering sovereignty. I'll briefly outline one way of doing this below. I'm calling it the Scott System, after myself cheekily :)
..the system
In this system two countries can agree to freedom of movement for a period of time, with it then being renewed or discontinued at the end of this period.
In my example I'm stating 10 years (though it could be anything). It would also be useful if this period began and ended at easily memorable dates in time.
In my example the first period begins; 1st January 2021.
And ends; 31st December 2030.
So, for example, Britain and Canada could agree to have complete free movement starting on this date. Then at the end of the period if it's working fine they could both simply renew it and continue for another 10 years, or if either is unhappy or feels it's not working discontinue it and end the free movement.
Within this you could then have rules and preconditions stipulating what the rights are for people that do go to live in the opposing country. In my system I would state that anyone who lives in the other country for 5 years automatically gets citizenship in that country.
So, if you go to live in Canada in 2022 you get full citizen rights if you're still living there in 2027 - regardless of whether free movement is renewed or cancelled in 2030.
However, let's say you go to live there in 2028 (two years before the deadline), you then go with the knowledge that if the arrangement isn't renewed your right to be there ends, and it's then at the discretion of the Canadian government to decide if and how long you stay. As it would be under standard (non-free movement) circumstances pretty much.
If they do continue the free movement though, and you're still there in 2033 then you get full citizenship after the 5 years. As in the previous example.
This way everyone knows where they stand, whatever happens. Unlike the EU now where there are no provisions for what happens to citizens if a country chooses to leave - as is that country's democratic right. With this way people understand what the potential circumstances are. So if they choose to take a job or buy a home in another country they know full well what opportunities/risks they're embracing.
Multiple Arrangements with Multiple Countries..
On top of this countries would be able to have such bilateral arrangements with as many other countries as they liked. So Britain could have free movement with, let's say, Canada, France and Germany (this is assuming they aren't in the EU and bound by its laws), while simultaneously Canada could have such arrangement with Britain, the US and Iceland.
British citizens would understand that they have the freedom to go to live and work in Canada, France, and Germany.
Canadian citizens would understand that they have the freedom to do the same in Britain, the US, and Iceland.
...However, Canadians wouldn't have the right to live and work in France and Germany. Nor would British people have the right to do this in the US or Iceland.
This may seem confusing at first, but it's no different to free movement now. Where British people understand they can work and travel in EU countries, but don't have the same rights when it comes to non-EU places such as the US or Turkey.
If all countries used the same dating period for their various bilateral agreements it would simplify things even more so.
Over time each country then could expand the number of countries they have these agreements with (if each country freely chooses to do so of course).
So, for example, Britain could agree to have free movement arrangements with Canada and the US starting on 1st January 2021. Then, after ten years if this is working and people are happy with it, agree to extra arrangements with say France or Mexico. Starting on 1st January 2031. And so on and so forth.
..how to stop people going to countries they're not supposed to be in.
Of course, people will ask; if countries have multiple agreements with multiple countries, how do you stop people going to countries that their country doesn't have an agreement with. For instance, if Britain and Canada have an agreement, and Canada and the US have an agreement, but the US and Britain doesn't have an agreement. How do you stop British people going to the US or vice versa.
Firstly, border checks could still take place. Obviously free movement suggests "completely borderless" to most people. However, checks at airports and borders are hardly a huge inconvenience. It's perfectly reasonable. We have to give our I.D. every time we buy alcohol at a supermarket. So, if you have the opportunity to go and work, live and potentially become a full citizen in another country having to show a passport at a border once in a while isn't really a hardship.
Secondly, and this is the real beauty of this system, as each country has the power to end free movement with a country at the end of the 10 year period they can use this as leverage. So, as in the example above, let's say the US are unhappy that British people are illegally coming to their country via Canada. They can then either end their free movement with Canada, or use the threat of this to get Canada to take action to respect their borders more. Canada, in turn, if they value their arrangement with the US, can then either control their borders better, end their free movement with Britain. Or use the threat of this to put pressure on Britain to get their people to respect the law more fully.
After all, it is about respecting the law of each country. And why would countries want to continue arrangements with countries and people that don't respect their country and their laws? In this system they would have the power to choose who they have free movement with and how long they continue this for. Meaning that if countries want the benefits of free movement they also need to show appreciation for the countries they're doing this with.
Personally I think this would be a much better, and more flexible, system.
Brexember 1st
Oh, and it's Brexember now. I mean October. So we're in the actual month of Brexit now. Should it happen.
Immunity From Criticism
Yesterday there were headlines stating that Matt Hancock, the Tory health secretary, was "looking seriously" at compulsory vaccinations for school children.
Now I don't want to get into the argument about the safety of vaccines, but I do want to push a more fundamental point. That being the right to choose. Should the state really be forcing vaccines on people? Does this not transgress some fundamental human right?
Recently we've had the furore surrounding Boris allegedly putting his hand on the thigh of a female journalist 20 years ago. If our person is so inviolable then surely being pinned down and forcibly injected with a needle is much worse than someone playfully putting their hand on our leg. Where's the #MeToo on this one.
If the state has sovereignty in this area then who's making these decisions. The same incompetent people that have mishandled Brexit for the last three years? And if you say "no, experts are making these decisions", then again, like with the judges, who judges the experts?
Is it experts that make their living in the pharmaceutical and medical industries? How can we be sure there are no conflicts of interest? Or that financial drivers aren't overriding medical concerns?
Vaccines and other medicines are pretty hefty business. If every individual in a country needs a batch of vaccine then that's a pretty lucrative contract for whoever's knocking up those batches. Can we really be sure that a "non-expert" politician will have the will and the understanding to say "no, sorry, my country doesn't need this vaccine, we'll decline the offer" in the face of such industry pressure. Especially when we're creating a culture where anyone daring to question the value or safety of a vaccine is immediately decried as a "loon" or "conspiracy theorist".
I remember being given the measles vaccine when I was about 13 or 14 years old ..even though I'd already had measles as a child. I remember making this point at the time, but it was just dismissed and I was told I still needed to have it. I understood only too well that we were all being immunised on mass like farm animals, with no regard to our personal circumstances. At least back then though parents had the right to take charge and say no. Though mine, like the politicians, were too bamboozled by the experts to do so.
The Matt Hancock suggestion of compulsory vaccination came with particular regard to measles, as it's apparently on the rise in Britain again. Though there are stories of people dying and having serious complications from measles, for most people the experience is a very minor one. You get some spots and have a few days off school. I distinctly remember it not being seen as that big a deal as a child. It was just one of those illnesses that most children got at some point in their childhood. So the idea that I needed to be vaccinated against it (regardless of whether I'd already had it) seemed a little odd at the time. I think this is how many people feel. They're being told by the experts it's an incredibly serious issue, but their personal life experience tells them that it isn't. This leads to suspicion. Compulsory vaccination would create this sense even more so.
So again, who decides what vaccines we should have, and how many. If not the individual. Where does it all stop? Is it really wise to play God with our immune systems to such an endless extent?
What if there is a downside? Is it wrong to ask this question?
Should we really be criticising people for their caution? And more to the point forcing them to comply.
I often wonder with the flu vaccines. Humans throughout their lifetime get a cold or the flu quite frequently. So perhaps there's some evolutionary benefit to this. After all, perfectly healthy people suffer from these things too. Perhaps getting a cold or the flu serves some purpose. Maybe it helps the body to clean out and reboot itself. For instance, when we get the flu we often get a temperature. The body no doubt needs this higher temperature to carry out certain functions. Perhaps these functions do more than just fight the flu.
Small children also tend to get all manner of tummy bugs and sniffly noses. Their bodies are of course developing quite a lot in these early years, so are these things a necessary part of this development.
We vaccinate against the flu and dream of curing the common cold ..but would this be a good thing? We've evolved in such a way that these things are a common part of life. Is this a failing of nature or is it a useful function?
I'm speculating here, but again, why shouldn't I? Is it not much more healthy to have vigorous debate and a diverse range of opinions. A free market, choice, and the evidence of the consequences of those choices.
Now I don't want to get into the argument about the safety of vaccines, but I do want to push a more fundamental point. That being the right to choose. Should the state really be forcing vaccines on people? Does this not transgress some fundamental human right?
Recently we've had the furore surrounding Boris allegedly putting his hand on the thigh of a female journalist 20 years ago. If our person is so inviolable then surely being pinned down and forcibly injected with a needle is much worse than someone playfully putting their hand on our leg. Where's the #MeToo on this one.
If the state has sovereignty in this area then who's making these decisions. The same incompetent people that have mishandled Brexit for the last three years? And if you say "no, experts are making these decisions", then again, like with the judges, who judges the experts?
Is it experts that make their living in the pharmaceutical and medical industries? How can we be sure there are no conflicts of interest? Or that financial drivers aren't overriding medical concerns?
Vaccines and other medicines are pretty hefty business. If every individual in a country needs a batch of vaccine then that's a pretty lucrative contract for whoever's knocking up those batches. Can we really be sure that a "non-expert" politician will have the will and the understanding to say "no, sorry, my country doesn't need this vaccine, we'll decline the offer" in the face of such industry pressure. Especially when we're creating a culture where anyone daring to question the value or safety of a vaccine is immediately decried as a "loon" or "conspiracy theorist".
I remember being given the measles vaccine when I was about 13 or 14 years old ..even though I'd already had measles as a child. I remember making this point at the time, but it was just dismissed and I was told I still needed to have it. I understood only too well that we were all being immunised on mass like farm animals, with no regard to our personal circumstances. At least back then though parents had the right to take charge and say no. Though mine, like the politicians, were too bamboozled by the experts to do so.
The Matt Hancock suggestion of compulsory vaccination came with particular regard to measles, as it's apparently on the rise in Britain again. Though there are stories of people dying and having serious complications from measles, for most people the experience is a very minor one. You get some spots and have a few days off school. I distinctly remember it not being seen as that big a deal as a child. It was just one of those illnesses that most children got at some point in their childhood. So the idea that I needed to be vaccinated against it (regardless of whether I'd already had it) seemed a little odd at the time. I think this is how many people feel. They're being told by the experts it's an incredibly serious issue, but their personal life experience tells them that it isn't. This leads to suspicion. Compulsory vaccination would create this sense even more so.
So again, who decides what vaccines we should have, and how many. If not the individual. Where does it all stop? Is it really wise to play God with our immune systems to such an endless extent?
What if there is a downside? Is it wrong to ask this question?
Should we really be criticising people for their caution? And more to the point forcing them to comply.
I often wonder with the flu vaccines. Humans throughout their lifetime get a cold or the flu quite frequently. So perhaps there's some evolutionary benefit to this. After all, perfectly healthy people suffer from these things too. Perhaps getting a cold or the flu serves some purpose. Maybe it helps the body to clean out and reboot itself. For instance, when we get the flu we often get a temperature. The body no doubt needs this higher temperature to carry out certain functions. Perhaps these functions do more than just fight the flu.
Small children also tend to get all manner of tummy bugs and sniffly noses. Their bodies are of course developing quite a lot in these early years, so are these things a necessary part of this development.
We vaccinate against the flu and dream of curing the common cold ..but would this be a good thing? We've evolved in such a way that these things are a common part of life. Is this a failing of nature or is it a useful function?
I'm speculating here, but again, why shouldn't I? Is it not much more healthy to have vigorous debate and a diverse range of opinions. A free market, choice, and the evidence of the consequences of those choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)