Category: Politics and economics

Britain has lost sight of democracy, but it is the European Union that has abandoned its citizens.

We’re hearing a great deal from people who feel that someone or other is ‘betraying’ people about Brexit.  There are around 750,000 references on Google to the phrase ‘Brexit betrayal’, including extensive coverage in the right-wing press, and nearly all of them seem to come from one side of the argument – the same side whose preferences or ‘Will’ have been slavishly, and impractically, followed by the UK government.

I, too, feel a sense of betrayal.  It is a betrayal both by the UK government and by the European Union. The European Union made a solemn declaration that all citizens of the European Union had fundamental rights.  The UK, and every other member state, pledged to protect those rights; the primary mechanisms for that protection was to be the action of the member state.  Both parties have reneged on that commitment, and as part of the same process: they have treated the negotiation just as if it was about a member giving notice to a club, rather than secession from a union.

Article 50 may have been new, but there was a precedent for secession.  When Greenland left the European Union, its citizens were given individually the option of deciding whether or not they wanted to continue as European citizens.  Before the referendum, I had vaguely supposed that something of the kind would be arranged for citizens of the UK – it was only as the arguments developed that I could see it wasn’t going to happen, and tried to raise the issue.  Departing the EU stands to create devastating problems for families, for workers and for people resident abroad in either bloc.  That is why  hundreds of thousands of UK citizens have taken up citizenship of other EU countries to avoid the consequences.

It wasn’t supposed to happen this way.  Rights that are conditional on governments paying a membership subscription are not ‘fundamental’ rights.  But it has become clear that states are the members of the European Union.  Despite the fine words and the formal declarations, the people who live in those states are not its citizens. Brexit stands to strip every European – both those who are citizens of the United Kingdom, and those who are citizens of other member states – of the protections they were faithfully promised.  There is a clear message in the negotiations, one that goes to every citizen of every member state:  the only citizenship you have that matters is the citizenship of your home country. European citizenship has been degraded to the status of a junk bond: a promise that will never be kept.

Throughout the process, too, both the EU and the UK have treated the negotiations as if they were a matter of international relations, a negotiation between the British Government and the Commission.  That is why the EU made no direct appeal to its British citizens during the referendum, and did nothing to safeguard their interests.

Compounding the problems, the process followed in the UK has been profoundly undemocratic. Democracy is not the rule of the majority. Majority voting is only a convention for resolving disputes. The referendum itself had some claim to democratic legitimacy, even if this was questionable; it excluded millions of people directly affected by the decision, including Britons living in the EU and citizens from other EU countries living in Britain.  But voting is not everything.   One of the tests is that people should have been engaged in a discursive deliberation; that has not happened, because the government was determined to keep its stance a secret (ostensibly, in case the people they were negotiating with found out about it; more probably because they didn’t know what their stance was).   More basically, democracy is supposed to be  a system that defends the rights of minorities.  That is something that this process has signally failed to do.

Additional note:  A petition to parliament to revoke Article 50 has picked up nearly 900,000 signatures in less than a day – 10,000 of them just while I was adding this note.   Find it here.


An old-fashioned approach to evidence? Guilty as charged.

I’m old-fashioned, and I’ve just been upbraided for it.  An article by Brian Monteith in the Scotsman made a number of claims which I thought rather far fetched, so I looked at some other evidence.  Monteith had written, at some length, that “the Euro currency project has been an economic catastrophe”, that since 1994 the growth of the US economy had far outstripped the Eurozone, and that if only the UK had not been within the EU we would all have been much richer. I checked some basic figures with the World Bank’s data and wrote this:

The idea that the Euro has been an ‘economic catastrophe’ is wishful thinking. Mr Monteith chose to start the clock in 1994. On the World Bank’s figures  income per capita in the Eurozone started in 1994 at $19516 and by 2017 had reached $43834, an increase of 125%. Income per capita in the USA started at $27350 in 1994 and finished at $60200 in 2017, an increase of 122%. It’s not a huge difference, but growth over time in the Eurozone more than kept pace with growth in the USA.

Growth in the UK, by contrast, was only 110% over the same period. If only our economic performance had been as good as the Eurozone’s.

This, I now know, was totally misguided, because it attracted this as a response:

You’re living in the past !….”Paul Spicker”
Any fool can quote PAST statistics !
Nothing to do with future prospects !

So there we are.  In the course of the last few years on the blog, I’ve tried to back up everything I say. The mistake I’ve been making all this time is to take statistics and evidence from the past, when they should have come from the future instead.  What I should have used is the crystal ball – I’m working on it.

Perhaps I should add that “Paul Spicker”, given inverted commas in the rebuke, is not an invented personality. I obviously lack the imagination that I need to contribute to social media.

Misunderstanding socialism

The Institute of Economic Affairs has just devoted a four-hundred page publication to proving that socialism doesn’t work.  But the book hardly refers to socialism at all; it’s about communism.  Their examples come from Russia, China, Albania, North Korea and so on, and as Tony Benn used to say sniffily whenever this sort of thing was repeated, “what has this got to do with us?”  Just in case they hadn’t noticed, socialism didn’t begin with Marxism, and by most lights it parted company with Marxism after about 1930.  Socialists and communists have followed different paths, and advocated different positions, for most of the period since the Second World War.

The basic rule is simple enough.  If you want to write a book about a subject, you need to find out something about the subject first.  This one doesn’t. In my website, I give a fairly straight description of the varieties of socialism:

There are many forms of socialism. The main models, which can be found in various permutations, include representations of socialism as

  • a movement for the improvement of society by collective action (for example, in Fabianism)
  • a set of methods and approaches linked with collective action, such as cooperatives, mutual aid, planning and social welfare services (e.g. the co-operative movement);
  • a set of arguments for social and economic organisation based on ownership and control by the community (e.g. in syndicalism, guild socialism and anarchism)
  • an ideal model of society based on cooperation and equality (e.g. Owenism and utopian socialism);
  • a critique of industrial society, opposing selfish individualism (e.g. Christian socialism), and
  • a range of values, rather than a particular view of how society works (e.g. the position of the Parti Socialiste Européen in the European Union).

… Marxism is irrelevant to much of the mainstream. Socialism in Europe grew from a range of religious, occupational and communal groups. Historically, socialism is strongly associated with working-class movements, and in much of Europe ‘socialist’ issues are closely linked with labour relations. The socialist group in the European Union identifies its role in terms of socialist values and principles rather than an ideal model of society.

The key socialist values are ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’. Some socialists would add to that issues of rights and democracy.

  • Liberty. Although many socialists refer to freedom as a basic right, liberty needs to be understood in social terms. Socialism calls for people to be enabled to do things through collective action, a principle sometimes referred to as empowerment‘. This principle has been central to ‘guild socialism’ and trades unionism.
  • Equality. Socialism is egalitarian, in the sense that socialists are committed to the reduction or removal of disadvantages which arise in society. The ‘Fabian’ tradition, a reformist movement, attempted to achieve greater equality through spending on social services.
  • Fraternity. Socialism is collectivist: people have to be understood in social context, rather than as individuals. Socialism is often represented in Europe in terms of ‘solidarity’, which means not just standing shoulder-to-shoulder but the creation of systems of mutual aid and support.

I’ve never had any sympathy for Marxism, but I’ve a lot of time for socialist and collectivist values.  [My next book, Thinking collectively, considers a range of collective positions – including conservative as well as socialist arguments; the proofs are done and it will be out by the summer. I’d welcome a review by the IEA.]


The Independent Group wants us to click on “I Agree”. Unfortunately, I don’t.

The ‘Independent Group’, the seven MPs who have quit the Labour Party has posted a statement of principles on its website.  (Not only do they have a website, they’ve even got a Wikipedia page; not bad for a movement that is less than one day old. )  The site opens on a positive statement of values, which they invite people to agree with.  Presumably they think the principle have a general appeal and that the statement places them somewhere near the political centre.  That may be true, but if so, the centre is a lot further to the right than it used to be.

Ours is a great country of which people are rightly proud, where the first duty of government must be to defend its people and do whatever it takes to safeguard Britain’s national security.

The idea that the first duty of government is defence comes straight out of the neo-conservative playbook, and it’s highly contentious.  The first duty of government should be this: the welfare of the people is the highest law (or salus populi suprema est lex:  when it’s in Latin, you know the sentiment has been around a long time).   In the course of the last  thirty years we’ve seen a proliferation of new states, and while defence matters. it comes well down the list of priorities.  What people want from their governments is practical benefit, and that’s a long way from what any government in the UK has been trying to do in recent years.

A strong economy means we can invest in our public services.

This one has it the wrong way round.  Investing in public services, and investing in people, is the way to have a strong economy.

The barriers of poverty, prejudice and discrimination facing individuals should be removed and advancement occur on the basis of merit, with inequalities reduced through the extension of opportunity, giving individuals the skills and means to open new doors and fulfil their ambitions.

Meritocracy and an emphasis of opportunity – the platform of the Conservative Party in the 1960s – are arguments for an unequal society.  Even the United Nations has been able to sign up to something more promising than this, pledging that no-one should be left behind. Anthony Crosland, who many people think of as being on the right of the Labour Party, wrote:

“in Britain equality of opportunity and social mobility … are not enough.  They need … to be combined with measures, above all in the educational field, to equalise the distribution of rewards and privileges so as to diminish the degree of class stratification, the injustice of large inequalities, and the collective discontents which come from too great a dispersion of rewards.”

Back to the Independent Group.

Individuals are capable of taking responsibility if opportunities are offered to them, everybody can and should make a contribution to society and that contribution should be recognised.

It seems that everyone should make a contribution to society.  But some people can’t.  Some are left out, some are shut out, some are pushed out; some will never be able to fill the gap.  When people are vulnerable and disadvantaged, it’s not a good time to look for a contribution.  Some of us believe that people should be protected.  Some of us even think that people might have rights.

I share many of the Independent Group’s concerns about the direction that the Labour Party has taken.  The direction they propose instead is not, however, the direction I’d want to take.


How to bring the Brexit negotiations to a conclusion

There are several possible conclusions of the Brexit negotiations.  This could all could finish with no deal, or with acceptance of the deal that Parliament has already objected to.  A second referendum might even finish with the UK deciding to stay in the EU, but that is unlikely.

The fundamental problem with the existing offer is a simple one:  it is incomplete.  Article 50 made provision for both a withdrawal agreement and an agreement about the future relationship.  The second part is missing.  There is a “political declaration”, but there isn’t a legally binding agreement about the future.  And that’s why the withdrawal agreement had to come with a ‘backstop’.  The backstop is only necessary because nothing has been firmly decided about the future.

We arrived at this situation through a combination of ill-considered procedural decisions.   The EU should not have insisted on postponing discussion of the future relationship until after the withdrawal agreement had been negotiated; that was inconsistent with its treaty obligations.  The UK government should not have consented to the timetable.  Nevertheless, that is what happened.  The way out of the dilemma now is to conclude the unfinished decisions about the future – in other words, negotiating the trade agreement that should have been on the table two years ago.

It might not be possible to make this agreement in the remaining time; that argues for an extension of the notice period.   But a final agreement would not require anyone to revisit the withdrawal agreement, it would have the advantage of saving face for both the EU and the UK government, and it would avoid a situation which none of the parties wants.

Brexit is set to deprive UK citizens of basic rights

I’ve repeatedly argued in this blog that trade with the EU is not the main issue: social rights are.  I wrote before the referendum that

If the UK leaves, UK citizens will lose their rights as European citizens. Those rights include rights to representation within the EU, the right to move and live freely throughout the EU, reciprocal rights to public services, and consular and diplomatic protection from other EU countries when outside Europe. There is something deeply flawed about a process that claims to be democratic but implies that a majority decision would deprive a minority of their rights.

Last March, the House of Commons passed this motion:

this House supports the maintenance of European Union citizenship rights for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English citizens, notes that the range of rights and protections afforded to individuals as European Union citizens are integral to a person’s European identity; further notes that many of those rights are closely linked to the UK’s membership of the Single Market; and calls on the UK Government to ensure that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and UK citizens’ right to European Union citizenship are retained in the event that the UK leaves the EU.

Yesterday, despite that, it emerged that if Britain leaves the EU without an agreement, reciprocal arrangements for  health insurance will be withdrawn from UK citizens living in other European countries.  None of the main protagonists in the Brexit debate is focusing on the things that really matter.


A second referendum is not the way out of this mess

If there is a second referendum, there is no good reason to suppose that it will deliver the result that remainers hope for.  I’m basing that view not on opinion polls, but on some old-fashioned political science.  There is no such thing as ‘the will of the people’.  What there is, instead, is a mish-mash of different opinions.  Some people voted ‘leave’ because they were unhappy with the EU; some because they were opposed to immigration; some because they were against capitalism; some because they wanted to return to the 1950s; some because they wanted to give the government a kicking.  Some people voted remain because they like the EU; some because of self-interest; some to avoid disruption; some because of their judgment about the economy; and so on.  Lies or fear may have played a part, on either side, but that’s not decisive; nor is the fact that some people will feel empowered to vote leave, or that other people will strain themselves to get a different result this time.  The more complex an issue is, the more likely it becomes that people with different motivations and preferences will cancel each other out, and the closer the result moves to what you’d expect from a random distribution – a 50-50 split.

Once we start from that position, the result is statistically likely to be decided by a relatively small group of people with a strong, settled opinion, if there is no equivalent group on the other side to oppose them.  The source of this argument is L Penrose, The elementary statistics of majority voting, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1946.    Bartholomew and Bassett wrote, in Let’s look at the figures, that  “2,000 resolute voters in a population of just over one million can almost always get their way.”   (p 125)  And that’s what happened in 2016.   (There might well have been an equivalent group on the other side – Britons in Europe – but they were largely barred from taking part.)     It’s not the polls that count; it’s the mechanism by which the issue is to be decided.  And without very strong reasons to the contrary, we should expect the same mechanisms and the same process to produce the same result.

Thoughts for 2019

Richard Murphy has posted a rather gloomy blog entry, outlining many of the things going wrong in Europe and America.  He points, among other things, to Brexit, populism, growing inequality and economic and political instability. 2019, he thinks, ‘is going to be horrid’.  While I can’t gainsay any of the grim predictions he offers, I think there are other grounds for optimism, mainly from the developing world.

  • There have been marked improvements in the incomes of poor populations in many of the world’s poorest countries – among them China, Bangladesh, South East Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.  See the World Bank’s Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals.
  • Around the world, infant mortality is falling.  So is family size – one follows from the other.
  • Maternal mortality is falling.
  • Girls are much more likely to be engaged in primary education.
  • Social protection is being extended.  See The state of social protection 2018.  There is a still a long way to go, with less than 30% of the world’s population experiencing comprehensive social security provision, but safety nets have been spreading across the global South.

2019 might well be horrid, but it may not be quite as horrid for everyone as it threatens to be in the UK.  Happy New Year.



How May’s government messed things up

While it still seems likely to me that the withdrawal agreement will be ratified, in the absence of anything clearer, the current government bears a heavy responsibility for a botched negotiation.  Regardless of whether one supports the principle of leaving or staying, the government has made a series of unforced errors.  They include:

  • giving notice with no prior negotiation and no plan – they were warned against this by Ivan Rogers, the lead diplomat at the time;
  • agreeing to a timetable, in breach of the EU’s treaty obligations, which precluded adequate discussion of the future relationship;
  • going into the negotiation without any prepared documents, position papers or proposed legal texts;
  • refusing to discuss the issues with other parties or outside contributors – a process fundamental to building consensus;
  • the ‘red lines’, and the withdrawal from other agreements such as Euratom, which were not part of the brief from the referendum;
  • the abandonment of considerations of citizenship, which were treaty obligations on the EU rather than for the UK;
  • failure to engage the devolved governments in questions relating to devolution (the obvious way to avoid differentiating Northern Ireland from other assemblies within the United Kingdom); and
  • repeated attempts to prevent Parliament from debating the issues, to the point of being declared in contempt of parliament.

To make one such error is unfortunate; to make eight stretches some way beyond carelessness. This is, in sum, the least competent administration of my lifetime.


The Bank of England wants us to make sure the ship has lifeboats in case of need. It hasn’t asked us to man them.

The Bank of England has offered us a range of scenarios, anticipating potential outcomes from different types of Brexit, based on a long series of assumptions.  These, for example, are possible eventualities relating to unemployment:

Jacob Rees Mogg has been complaining about the ‘wild inaccuracies’ of previous Treasury forecasts.  That’s quite irrelevant.  A projection is a conditional statement, saying what will happen subject to certain assumptions; a scenario is an alternative possible future; a prediction is a statement about what will happen.  Projections and scenarios are not predictions.  Putting lifeboats on passenger ships is not based on a prediction about what is going to happen; it’s a preparation for a particular scenario.  It doesn’t mean the ship is sinking.  Mind, in this case it might be.