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

Popular posts from this blog

When will the UK trigger Article 50?

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...

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...

Identity is taking over politics

Mark Lilla writes in the New Statesman ( September 2017 ) that the "Left", i.e. the US Democratic Party, social justice and anti-facism movements, lost the US election due to being side-tracked by gender and race issues. Enough of the electorate weren't buying it and Trump won. In hindsight attacking a large proportion of the electorate based on their gender and race is never a good idea, no matter which race or gender you are talking about. No, it's not acceptable to denigrate men or white people either. Trump of course did the same, by attacking foreigners, Mexicans, Muslims and women, but he got away with it due to media bias and partisan politics. At home, Peter North, a prominent pro-Brexit blogger, tweeted about "self determination". This immediately raised the issue of what is "self", and lo and behold we are back to identity again. If we all feel European, then being governed by the EU is indeed self-determination, and let's not ki...