Skip to main content

How the right misunderstands Europe

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 example, Rupert Murdoch simply has no influence over the EU in the same way that he does over the UK.

Thus free-marketeers have decided that the “nation state” is the superior model than European superstate, and indeed much of the UK population feels the same way. The problem is that the UK leaving the EU will not turn the EU into a set of small states again. We cannot turn back the clock 40 years and trade with each country in Europe any more. It’s the UK and EU, that is the reality we live in now, and that will put the UK at a distinct disadvantage. The UK’s best effort to scupper the EU will come to nothing.

The second problem is that the right-wing liberals are in for a mighty surprise when the UK does not get a reasonable exit deal with the EU. Sure, it may be in the EU’s short term financial interests to strike a favourable deal with the UK, but that entirely misunderstands the situation. Right-wing conservatives simply don’t understand that other people have values other than money.

This has far-reaching consequences. The immediate one is that the EU values its principles and “freedoms” far more than any seedy financial deal it could strike with the UK. To the far-right that seems utterly illogical, because they fail to appreciate European values.

The far-right sees trade liberalisation as the only source of wealth, without appreciating that “left-wing” values such as a healthy educated workforce, social mobility, freedom of movement, good infrastructure etc. are all necessary underpinnings that drive the real economy. Everything else is smoke and mirrors that tends to make the few richer. Thus, the far-right will be disappointed when in ten years time, the UK is still much poorer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

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

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali