Skip to main content

Theresa May's speech

Britain has set sail on the wrong course.

Theresa May actually gave a very strong speech today, where she set out the plan for Brexit. She set out in the strongest possible terms that the UK would indeed be leaving the customs union and the single market, yet would seek a trade deal to minimise disruption and maximise trade. I liked her honesty - she sees that remaining in the single market would involve too many compromises.

She was wrong that voters went into this with their eyes open. Most voters would have been under the impression that we could maintain similar trade arrangements after Brexit. The crux of the issue is this mythical trade deal that we would get with the EU. In particular, she was optimistically hoping that it could be hammered out within 2 years in order to minimise disruption, however on that point she is utterly mistaken.

What we instead have is a massive gamble by Leave that such a deal could be struck, and Leave will be left with their pants down when the reality hits them in 2 years time. It will take 5-10 years to reach a trade deal with the EU.

I further disliked the threats to the EU, that it was in the EU's interests to strike a trade deal, or else. Remember that it's the UK who are leaving, and the EU is in no obligation to lift a finger to help us.

Finally what I disliked was the idea that all Remainers, and people who scrutinise the government's actions are traitors, because we working against the national interest. The claim that we are all behind Brexit is ludicrous.

Although Mrs May is wrong, I appreciate her honesty and openness. In terms of delivering Brexit, she has clearly stated that we are aiming for a hardish Brexit. I fundamentally disagree with this. Given the closeness of the vote, the mandate is only for an EEA/EFTA style Brexit, and indeed many Leave campaigners were for this. An even more honest approach would be to rip up the referendum result, as I'm sure in the fullness of time it will be seen to be a very bad idea, and Mrs May should have stopped it but didn't. History will condemn her.

This optimism about Britain's new place in the world is misplaced. Britain got lucky with Empire, and made some smart decisions. Brexit isn't a smart decision, and will lead to a less influential and less prosperous Britain. Britain isn't inherently better than any other country, but was punching above its weight due to its strategic alliances, and its influence in the EU, which we are now leaving.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more