Opinion

and how this will harm the UK It’s becoming clearer by the day that the result of the referendum for the UK to leave the EU was a right wing coup. Some types of right wing are “simply” nationalists - they like to keep things British and some of them don’t like too many foreigners. Enough is enough. But there are other types of right wing which are more interesting - the right wing liberals. These are ultra-conservatives who believe that anything interfering with a free market is inherently wrong. Free marketeers are not particularly concerned about immigration. But they are instinctively suspicious of the EU, with its working time directives, environmental protections, human rights, workplace rights, product quality standards, and “red tape” (ha - wait until the UK leaves the EU!) and somewhat left-wing leanings. In short, ethics. Some prominent right-wingers may even have experienced personal inconvenience or minor financial loss at the hands of the EU, and are out to get it. For

Free-marketeers were all too happy win the EU referendum by exploiting a wave of nationalism, but in doing so they locked themselves out of any “deal” with the EU, ensuring catastrophe and sealing their own downfall. There are many honest reasons that people voted to leave the EU, and “simple racism” or “a cry for help” don’t really capture it. For sure, people wanted change, and wanted to take back control of their own lives if not their own country. Most people vote whichever way their newspapers tell them to, and the gutter press is awash incessant drip-drip of anti-immigration anti-EU sentiment. If the newspapers tell them they’ll be more prosperous outside of the EU, then people will believe it. There are plausible arguments on both sides. I can’t do the maths either, and it boils down to who you trust. We really need to look behind the headlines, to see who is pulling the strings. From James Dyson, Rupert Murdoch, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage, these were all

Secrecy is a democratic outrage that gains us very little The Independent: Brexit negotiation details will be kept secret from Parliament, David Davis says (12th September 2016) David Davis has unilaterally decided that it's necessary to keep their Brexit discussions "secret" from parliament. I suspect that the real reason for this is for the convenience of Mr Davis, who is tired of constant scrutiny. Scrutiny would show just how ill-informed and unprepared DExEU really is, and Mr Davis wants to save himself embarrassment. [Edited to add: This also seems like a cynical ploy to prevent the Tory party from blowing up.] The reason given is that it would "undermine our negotiating stance". Davis imagines himself to be a hard-nosed negotiator who will outwit the Europeans like we did in World War 2. I cannot conceive what possible advantages this secret ploy will gain, unless the secret ploy is that there isn't one. As soon as we engage with the EU, everyt

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50

We are heading for an all-or-nothing deal with the EU. It's over two months since the Referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU, and a few things have started to happen. Firstly, we have a new team in government, led by Theresa May, who seemed determined to make Brexit happen, and make Brexit work. These people seem bloody minded, are impervious to evidence and are happy to steamroller due process. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is also anti-EU, will uphold the referendum and is an electoral disaster. An extremely weak opposition. The Labour leadership contender Owen Smith seems much more amenable but probably lacks enough support in the wider Labour Party. The Remain campaign Remain shambolic. They have now rebranded themselves "Open Britain" and seem indistinguishable from the Leave campaign. The man to really fear is David Davis, the Minister for Brexit. He seems to be in favour of "Flexcit", using EEA as a stepping-stone to leaving the EU, but

I was just watching the F1 Belgian Grand Prix qualifying, and was struck by a couple of sentences which occurred in the space of about 10 minutes. On a (male) racing driver, by a man: "apart from being tall dark and handsome, what do we know about Manor's new driver?" On David Coulthard, by a woman, "he's completely gorgeous". No similar comments on females were made. I have no problem with this, but I wonder how feminists would have reacted if the genders of the drivers were reversed? I could imagine them using this as further "proof" that society is inherently sexist, is objectifying women, and that the value of a female is still tied to her appearance. If you look at glossy magazines and calendars, they are full of well toned topless men. A Google search for "sexy male calendar" yields more hits than a similar search for "sexy female calendar." I don't care, but I do mind feminists claiming that only females are obje

Brian lives with long-term partner Eugene. But Brian is always grumbling, and one day they decide to split up. Act 1: The breakup Scene 1: Brian : We need to talk. Eugene : Uh oh, okay then. Brian : You've changed and I'm not happy any more. I don't like living under your rules. You need to change... Eugene : I'm not sure I can. Brian : That's it, I'm walking out. Scene 2: Brian : I need to take control of my life. I'm leaving. Eugene : Fine, just go. Brian : I'll save so much money because I won't need to pay any household bills. Eugene : You are an idiot. Brian : I save so much time on paperwork. Eugene : You are still an idiot. Brian : I won't need to see your stupid friends any more. Eugene : But my friends are great and really help us out. Brian : I really mean it. I'm going. Eugene : Well, what are you waiting for? Act 2: The separation Scene 1: Brian : Before I go, I have a few demands. Eugene : What? Just go away already.

I found David Davis's article on his economic strategy for Brexit to be quite illuminating. Here it is: http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html The main points are as follows: 1) Britain should start making trade negotiations now 2) We should sound out the EU prior to invoking Article 50 3) We should invoke Article 50 when we're good and ready (e.g. by year end) 4) The EU will in all likelihood yield to our demands to access the single market 5) We should be prepared to walk away from the EU (to WTO rules) 6) Many trade deals can be in place within 2 years. 7) Our long term future is rosier outside of the EU. Another source of (quite blunt) views on Brexit come in the comments sections of The Express, and other tabloids who have been feeding their readers all sorts of anti-EU pro-Brexit stories which have stoked up their readership in

Article 50 (A50) represents the point of no return, where the UK formally announces that it is withdrawing from the EU. The real point of no return was of course the referendum result, but A50 represents the next milestone in the Brexit process. Those calling for an early A50 argue that there is no benefit to delaying, as this just adds uncertainty and delays the entire process and inevitable recovery. They (mainly Leavers) don't want the referendum result annulled. Those who want to delay A50 say that we need time to prepare (not least, set up a new department for Brexit), and entertain the notion of pre-negotiations, as well as buying time to set up trade deals elsewhere in the world. The EU is very clear that there can be no exit negotiations until Article 50 has been triggered, and it looks very unwilling to compromise. The markets have taken the Brexit vote relatively calmly, and so far it's been very smooth going. This is because nothing has actually happened yet, and wo

The trouble with an in/out referendum is that there are many different issues which all get conflated into one binary decision. It’s a bit like voting for Labour/Conservative, when you may not agree with everything one particular party does. It would be utterly wrong to paint the majority of Leavers as racists. Although I voted Remain myself, it is important to understand and respect the people who voted Leave. There are some very good, and very valid reasons for voting Leave: We do not agree that the United States of Europe is the right direction for Europe, and we do not want to be part of it. Further integration is undesirable.  The European project is doomed to failure, perhaps by a debt crisis. Best just to leave a sinking ship.  We have no control over our borders, either from Eastern Europeans, Turkey, or from other migrant crises from Syria.  Our sense of identity is fundamentally British, not European.  We have our own values, which are distinct from European values,

Although events are unfolding at a rapid pace, a lot of these things are largely irrelevant. It looks like the Conservative Party will hold itself together and conduct an orderly leadership election. The sheer panic of Friday 24rd of June is now over, and the markets have rebounded. There will be no annulment of the result, no re-runs, and no early general election. The rhetoric of the Leave politicians has changed. There has been a huge amount of back-pedalling by the Leave campaigners, who now recognise late in the day the need to cooperate closely with Europe. They now recognise that they must (1) stay in the single market, and (2) retain bank "passporting" rights, which mean that our banks can operate in Europe from London. By default, both of these would be forfeited if we left the EU. The markets have responded positively, because if Britain does maintain access to the single market and passporting, then it's almost business as usual. But I fear their optimism

I've been following various anti-feminist groups for a few months, and am now, in a very unscientific sense, able to summarise my impressions. My brushes with feminism have always been quite problematic, and it's fair to say that all is not well with feminism. It is perfectly reasonable to criticise feminism, because bad feminism, of which there is a lot, will at best achieve nothing and at worst actually end up harming women and men. My main criticisms of feminism are that it's incredibly pejorative, and it only focusses on the problems of one gender. In fact, any feminist who focuses on, or even raises the issue of men, is rather insultingly called a "menimist", and is accused of bleating "what about the men?" Ironic, since the entire point of feminism is "what about the women?" Like feminism, anti-feminism actually comes in many different flavours, and it's important to realise that not all feminists are crazy, and not all

As a software developer, I see regular discussion about gender issues in software engineering. In particular, this article by Bruce Perens asserts that women are treated badly in open source, and gives some suggestions how to address it. Another interesting website is  geekfeminism.org , in particular their  Timeline of incidents . I would certainly agree with Perens that online communities can be very hostile and rude, yet I think it goes too far to suggest that the majority of men in general, and open source contributors in particular, have a problem, even subconsciously, with women. The few women I have encountered in a technical context have been excellent, and I wish there were more of them. I certainly avoid online discussions for the reason that people can be very rude, and this is a real shame. But as a man, who in spite of my limited online presence, has been at the receiving of rudeness from plenty of men and women. The normal, sensible reaction to this, is that online