Friday, 10 August 2018

Tolerance must tolerate even mockery or else be intolerance

Like everyone else I tend to avoid writing about Islam. The events of the past week show why. Many people still care deeply about religion even if Britain is for the most part secular. We live in a country with people from many backgrounds and with very different beliefs. We have to try to get on. The very least that is required is that we should try to be polite and kind. But I believe that honest debate can help us to reach a better understanding and that failure to write openly and self-censorship may lead to an increase in misunderstanding rather than a decrease.

I have only rarely seen someone wearing a niqāb and still more rarely seen a burqa. I’ve seen lots of women wearing head scarfs and quite a few wearing clothing that covers pretty much everything except their hands and face. I must admit that I get a bit of a shock when I see someone covering their face. It may well be irrational, but I also feel a slight sense of fear. I’m sure it requires far more bravery to walk about with a veil. She is more likely to receive nasty comments or worse than I am, so I wouldn’t be surprised if both of us are feeling a bit of fear. I have never asked. I’ve never had the slightest interaction with someone wearing a veil. I don’t suppose I ever will.

Why do some women wear veils? I think in order to understand this we have to go back to the history of the three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Judaism is a religion of law. The rules of Jewish life were set forth in books like Leviticus and developed by means of the constant interpretations generations of rabbis made about these books. But Judaism was also a religion that passed onto subsequent generation by means of family rather than by means of conversion. Although the example of Ruth the Moabite showed that it was possible to convert to Judaism, it was never easy. For this reason Judaism tended not to spread and whatever rules it had only applied to its own people. Moreover, because in the history of Judaism Jewish people were rarely the lawmakers, it was usually easy for Jews to cease to follow the rules and become secular.

The essential difference between Christianity and Judaism is that it spread by means of conversion and subsumed the multiplicity of Jewish law into the straightforward and simple “Love God and love your neighbour”. It is for this reason that Christ could pick grain on the Sabbath and in this way demonstrate to his followers that they no longer had to worry about the rules in Leviticus. They could eat what they please, more or less, drink what they please and didn’t have to worry about how to cook things, how to dress or how to wash.

Islam is both a religion of law and a religion that spreads by means of conversion. There are many rules by which Muslims must live. Some of these are derived from the Koran [al-Qurʾān] others from the various writings that came subsequently e.g. Hadith and Sunnah.  Many of these rules are similar to the ones that Jewish people follow such as not eating pork, others are different such as the rules about not drinking alcohol and the rules about praying. The difference however between Judaism and Islam is that whereas Jewish people only wished to apply their rules to other Jews, Muslims owing to their desire to convert others to their faith wished to apply their rules to non-Muslims. For this reason in Muslim countries, there is a tendency to apply Islamic law not merely to Muslims, but to everyone else because Islamic law is universal.

Are Muslim women obliged to wear a veil? This is where things become a little more complex. Muslims differ in their interpretation not so much of the Koran, but of the Hadith and Sunnah and the various other traditions that have developed during the past centuries. The result is that in some Muslim countries women don’t even feel obliged to wear a head scarf, in others they are required to show nothing but their eyes (niqāb), sometimes not even that (burqa).

How should a secular society respond? The crucial point I believe we must make is to say that Islamic law does not apply here. In all of Britain no one is forbidden from drinking alcohol, eating pork or required to cover their face. But anyone who chooses to follow Islamic rules must be free to do so.

But what do we do about people who feel forced by their family or community to follow rules that they otherwise would not wish to. Here we must make clear to everyone that it is the right of every British citizen not to be forced to marry, not to be forced to wear a veil, or anything else for that matter, and not to be forced to have parts of their anatomy mutilated. Even if various traditions and various interpretations of religious law require these things, British law requires that the citizen must not be forced.

For this reason, women from any religious background must be able to tell someone that they are being coerced by their family or community to do something that they don’t want to do and then gain the protection of the British state so as to prevent this coercion.

British Muslims must have the same rights as any other Brits. So long as they wish to follow Islamic law and doing so is compatible with British law they should be free to follow whichever religious rules they please. But if they should choose to cease to believe in Islam or if they should wish to get drunk in a pub or if indeed they should wish to run down the street naked instead of wearing a veil then the full force of UK law should protect them.

We should respect all religions, but that does not mean we have to agree with them or feel unable to criticise aspects that we disagree with. Religions are not all the same.  Some core religious beliefs are incompatible. To believe one to be true is to believe that others are false. Likewise, people must be free to believe that all religions are false.

Just as most British people feel free to criticise aspects of Christianity that they disagree with, so we must all feel free to criticise aspects of Islam that we disagree with. In order to respect someone you have to treat them the same as everyone else. Someone who is willing to criticise the Catholic Church’s attitude to abortion, but unwilling to criticise Muslim practices with regard to veiling obviously thinks that Muslims are less able to debate rationally than Catholics. This strikes me as far more racist than treating British Muslims simply as our equals.

We live in a society where we are free to mock the Book of Mormon, the Spanish Inquisition and the crucifixion itself because we think that Mormons and Christians will probably have a sense of humour and even if they don’t they must tolerate satire and even mockery. We should expect no less of Muslims.

Friday, 3 August 2018

The fourth horseman

The two issues that dominate Scottish and UK politics both involve a choice of whether to Leave or Remain. There are four variants. Let's embrace the current apocalyptic metaphors and call them horsemen.

          EU              UK

1.       Leave         Leave    Independent Scotland out of the EU.

2.      Remain      Leave    Independent Scotland inside the EU.

3.      Remain      Remain   United UK inside the EU.

4.      Leave         Remain   United UK outside the EU.

Clearly all of these are possible positions. The SNP officially wants to Remain in the EU, but leave the UK, while many of its supporters would prefer to leave both.

There has been a tendency among some Remain supporters to describe wishing to leave the EU as a form of nationalism. But what do we mean by nationalism?

As I have long argued there are three main senses in which the word nationalism is used in politics.

1. Secession nationalism. 

2. Unification nationalism.

3. Far right nationalism.

Secession and unification nationalism are both perfectly legitimate political goals and there are large numbers of examples from history. Ukraine left the USSR in order to form an independent sovereign state. Likewise Italian and German nationalism were the processes which united various Italian and German speaking territories into single sovereign states. These goals are morally neutral and sensible people can disagree about whether they are desirable or not. When I describe an SNP supporter as a nationalist it is simply a descriptive term that usefully distinguishes this sort of political goal from other political goals.

Far right nationalism is different and it would be better if we had a different word for this. It defines the nation in a narrow usually racist fashion and wishes to exclude others on these grounds. Luckily in Britain far right nationalism wins few votes at elections. When this sense of nationalism is used to describe Brexiteers it is used simply as an insult. We truly are in trouble if 17 million British citizens support the far-right. Likewise calling people who support the unity of the UK British nationalists is an equally unpleasant insult. It is equating us with people who support the BNP. For this reason I have had a long standing policy of blocking people who use such terms on Twitter and I have recently extended it to Remain supporters who use nationalism as a term of abuse or who think it funny to conflate the UK wishing to leave the EU with Scotland wishing to leave the UK. When I discover that someone doesn’t wish to discuss but just wants to insult, I become immediately uninterested in anything else they might have to say.

The first two senses of nationalism should in no way be thought of as insulting for the process of historical development very frequently has involved these unifying and seceding processes.

What has the EU been in the process of doing since its foundation? It is obvious that it has gradually been attempting to unify the various member states into what it hopes will eventually be a single united sovereign state. It is doing what in effect Germany did in the nineteenth century. This therefore is a form of unification nationalism.

From this it can be shown that the first option (Leave Leave) whereby Scottish nationalists wish to both leave the UK and the EU is by far the more coherent position for them to take. These people take the view that it is pointless to leave the UK if Scotland is just going to end up being ruled by Brussels. But while this position is coherent it persuades few Scots who are not already fervent believers in Scottish nationalism. After all, the softest form of independence imaginable was rejected in 2014. This is why the SNP rejects Leave Leave as politically untenable.  This above all is why Pro UK people should support Brexit, because it makes the SNP’s position untenable. Always do what your opponent least wants.

The mainstream SNP position (Remain Leave) involves Scotland in both the secession form of nationalism and the unification form. This looks rather like saying we don’t mind sharing a sovereign state with Europe we just can’t bear sharing it with England. If the EU really is going to become a united nation state then Scotland would have no more independence than does Texas. Scottish nationalists would therefore be the equivalent of nineteenth century Northern Bavarians trying to secede from Bavaria while the whole of Bavaria was uniting into Germany. What would be the point? “Independence within Europe” therefore is going in opposite directions at the same time leading to complete incoherence.

Those who wish a united UK to remain in the EU (Remain Remain) are clearly in effect subscribing to the unification form of nationalism, though few would admit it. The EU has been on a journey towards “ever closer union” from its beginning, just as various German states were in the process of unifying long before they actually unified. The EU is closer to becoming a United States of Europe now than these German states were in 1848, so anyone who doubts where the EU is going needs to read some relatively straightforward history books.

Remain supporters frequently think of themselves as internationalists, but this is a mistake. The relationship between the parts of Germany is not international. It ceased to be international when the parts ceased to be nation states. In order to be an internationalist you have to believe in the maintenance of the sovereign nation state, but work towards cooperation with other sovereign nation states. Internationalism is not about annulling nation states, which is just another word for the unification form of nationalism, but rather it is about maintaining them.

Remain Remain contradicts itself further because in agreeing with mainstream Scottish nationalism about the EU it makes the goal of Scottish nationalism easier to achieve. The condition for the possibility of sub-nation nationalism in Europe is the EU. It is for this reason that independence supporters whether from Catalonia, Flanders or Scotland see the EU as allowing them to maintain the same rights as they have at present, owing to EU membership, even if they became independent. For this reason Remain Remain in the long run leads both to the breakup of the UK (secession nationalism) and to the UK or its parts subsuming itself into the EU whole (unification nationalism). In no sense therefore does Remain Remain in the long run lead to the maintenance of the UK.

Wanting a united UK to leave the EU isn’t nationalism at all. Apart from the insulting far right sense of the word, nationalism is about becoming rather than being. It is about becoming something that you are not. The UK is already united. Wishing to maintain this unity is not nationalism. Every sovereign state in the world wishes to maintain its territorial integrity. If this is nationalism then the word ceases to have any meaning. So trying to avoid the secession form of nationalism is not nationalism, but likewise and for the same reason wishing to avoid the unification form of nationalism is not nationalism either.

In 1866 at the battle of Königgrätz Saxony fought with the Austrian Empire against Prussia and lost. One result of this was that Saxony had to join the North German Confederation and within a few years too part in the final stages of German unification. Saxony’s fight against unification nationalism was not itself nationalistic. Saxony was not seceding, rather it was saying we don’t want to take part. Now that Saxony is a part of a united Germany, it could only achieve independence again by means of secession. This would be nationalism, but in 1866 it was simply trying be what it was rather than become something that it was not.

Brexit supporters who recognise that the EU makes Scottish nationalism easier, are simply using Brexit to defeat both secession nationalism and unification nationalism. Brexit is not about uniting with anyone else, nor is it about seceding from another nation state. The EU is not a nation state, that is what it is becoming. Brexit is about recognising what is happening to the EU and saying we don’t want to take part.

The debate between Remain and Leave is very peculiar for the simple reason that although many people are passionate Remain supporters, very few of them actually want the UK to be subsumed in a United States of Europe. Support for European federalism is vanishingly small in the UK. Some Remain supporters think the UK can keep a sort of semi-detached relationship with the EU (outside the Euro, outside Schengen) indefinitely and somehow we can avoid “ever closer union”, or else they think that the EU will never quite reach the United States of Europe stage.

But the last two years have shown us that the EU is showing ever more signs of the unification nationalism that Germany displayed in the nineteenth century, whereby it was willing to crush all dissent in the name of getting towards its goal of unity. The attempt to punish Brexit in order to either bring us back into the fold or else at least to discourage any other attempts to leave is a strategy worthy of Moltke and Bismarck.

In the end the choice remains the same as it did in 2016. Either you wish the UK to become a region in the EU, subsumed and in the end with no more sovereignty than Texas, or you wish to leave. There might be some advantages in being a part of the United States of Europe, but let us at least be honest about the long term choice that we face. We are going to have to face up to this choice sooner or later, but later might be too late. The process of unification will soon reach a point where leaving isn’t an option. We are almost at that point now. If we let Remain drag us back into the EU prison we won’t get a second chance to escape. 

The fourth Brexit horseman far from being apocalyptic is the only means we have of escaping an eventual fate that few Brits whether Leavers or Remainers actually want. It is the means by which we keep the UK united and a sovereign state rather than submerged in ever closer EU union. Far from being scary the fourth horse is the means by which we avoid something scary. We must let nothing, and certainly not scare stories from sore losers, hinder our journey to freedom. We still have time to jump on the Brexit horse and gallop off into the distance. Only in this way can we evade the EU/Remainer conspiracy to put down a healthy horse on the grounds that "Hell followed with him."

Integration versus disintegration in international relations

In order to understand the issues involved when political parties seek independence it is necessary to look at the topic in terms of its fundamentals. This involves looking at two processes. One is the process by which countries or parts of countries integrate. The other is the way in which they sometimes disintegrate. There are in history examples of unification and examples of secession. These two processes both describe something fundamental in human nature. Only by exploring them will it be possible to understand the essence of the political issue.

Why do we have nation states at all?

It is important to explore the historical issue of how people living in small villages in antiquity gathered together. We moved from tribes, to areas ruled by warlords or chiefs, then to kings. Every European country is made up of places that once were independent. This process of integration is generally called progress.

Looking at a map of Britain at the time of the Romans we find that there were many peoples inhabiting this small island. 

Even the names of these peoples have for the most part been forgotten. Whatever once divided them has ceased. The reason for the division was, no doubt due to problems with communication. Travelling from the south of England to the north in those days was, no doubt a major journey. For this reason rulers were localised. 

Scotland too was just as much a divided territory in Ancient times. There too were numerous tribes with names that have now been forgotten. Later at least four peoples could be found in Scotland and the British Isles. This happened because of migration and also because of the processes of division and integration. Tribes fought and made peace. Territory was won and lost. The whole was in flux. 

The history of the British Isles is the process by which Celtic speaking people, became English speaking people. It was above all language that united these many peoples, but it was also the process by which modern nation states came into existence. Gradually different people found that they had something in common or through conquest and assimilation were made to have something in common. Small weak local rulers were subsumed by larger stronger ones. This began in Roman times, but continued when the Romans left. 

If we move forward a few hundred years we can see that the process of integration has continued. The Celts have been pushed westwards. Germanic/Scandinavian peoples have continued to spread from the East and to the North. There are still quite a large number of kingdoms in Britain, but there are many fewer than when the Romans first arrived. 

Britain is still not united, nor for that matter are England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. The idea that there was such a thing as an English or a Scottish people in antiquity is refuted by history. There were many different peoples in the various parts of the British Isles, but they had not reached any sort of unity. They were however moving towards unification.

At this point in British history there are still a number of different languages spoken in Britain. People in the north and west tend to speak Celtic languages in the south and east Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian languages. If this division had continued then so might the division of Britain. But it didn’t. Gradually and with the help of further invasions from the Normans, modern English arose. Within another few hundred years, by 1707, Britain was united into a country that for the most part spoke English.

This process of integration could be illustrated in nearly every European country. Examples can be found in other countries around the world as well. As people develop they tend to come together. We can see the same sort of thing happen today with the rise of multi-national companies and globalisation. There are economies of scale when people come together to form a nation state. There are advantages to being ruled on a national level rather than allowing every small village to have its own chief. Unity allows people to achieve more than when they are separate, both in terms of security and in terms of economics. The story of human development is to a great extent the story of its unification. This is what we mean by progress.

Is there a limit to this progress?

Why should we stop integrating? Why not end up with a world government, like the Federation in science fiction’s Star Trek? If unification is so beneficial why do we stop? Why don’t the world’s present nation states continue the process of joining together that begun in antiquity?

If the EU could succeed in creating a Federal United States of Europe, could this be a model for other continents. Given that Europe is an arbitrary continent why not make it the Eurasian Union? Why not go still further and treat all human beings as citizens of one nation state?

Two models of nationalism

Nationalism can go in two directions. Patriotism, by the way, is not nationalism unless it becomes extremism. Nationalism can be unifying, for example German unification in 1860s and 1870s and Italian nationalism during Risorgimento. Here nationalism describes the process of integrating German and Italian speaking peoples into a nation state. Many independent statelets become one.

The other sort of nationalism is by means of secession: A part of a nation state votes or fights to leave. Poland leaves the Russian Empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire falls apart, Ukraine leaves USSR. Slovenia leaves Yugoslavia.

There are two factors at play in world politics. One separates the other unifies. These two factors are always present. While there is a tendency towards unification that is connected with human progress, there is also the tendency towards division. These processes are present even today. At almost the same time as West and East Germany united, Czechoslovakia divided. Just as unification is grounded in human nature, so too is secession. In order to look at these processes in more detail it is necessary to explore the reasons why people unite or divide.

The process of unification

Small territories are conquered by larger ones. But this usually occurs only when they already have similarities. For example, the gradual unification of Russia from small territories ruled by warring princes occurred in the context of fighting a common enemy, the Mongols. Only by gradually uniting could they stand up to common enemy. As a consequence of this unification Russia could then move towards expansion, by which it brought other peoples into the ever increasing Russian empire. Without the initial unification Russian power would never have developed in the first place.

However a united country normally has certain key factors. The population is already similar or else it becomes similar.

Typically a country is united because its people speak the same language, have a similar history, culture, ethnicity and religion. They are normally geographically distinct from other countries.

The process of unifying a country frequently irons out difference. In France in the middle ages there were many variants of French. Now there is only French. The process of unification created this common language and common identity.

The process of division

Secession happens most frequently when a nation state includes people who are in some important respect different from their neighbours or where there is a political disagreement that cannot be overcome otherwise than through secession, or where there is a significant geographical divide such as an ocean.

The fundamental reason why the USA split from Britain was geography. The disputes between the American colonists and Britain could have been overcome, but the Atlantic Ocean could not. The difference between an American and a British person even today is quite small. We understand each other quite easily. Culturally we are very similar. But people prefer to be ruled by someone who lives on the same continent as they do. For this reason also Australia and New Zealand although linguistically and culturally almost identical to Britain do not wish to be ruled by someone who lives on the other side of the world.

Identity is crucial to the issue of secession. If people in a nation state feel different in a crucial respect to others living there, then a desire to live in a separate country may arise. For example, the now independent countries of the former USSR now have an identity that is different from that of Russia. Many of them speak a different language, e.g. Armenian, Kazakh. 

Many former Soviet citizens living in the non-Russian republics, no doubt, had a Soviet identity, but this was not enough to prevent the break-up of the Soviet Union. At what point is a common identity not enough to overcome the feeling of difference? Here we see the two processes of integration and disintegration working. There is something in human nature that brings us together, a common identity, but there is also something that splits us apart, a separate identity. The limit of a common identity may turn out to be the limit of unification.

Political disagreement may give rise to secession even when identity is very similar. For example, the southern states (the Confederacy) seceded from the USA because of a potential political disagreement over slavery. In nearly every other respect an American from the south was not very different from someone from the north. Even today there have been instances where some Texans talked about secession because of the election of Obama, while some Californians talked about it due to the election of Trump. In any nation state a part will frequently vote differently from the whole. This is not a fault of democracy, it is a feature. But if a part of a nation state cares deeply enough about a political issue and if they feel that the state as a whole prevents the fulfilment of this political goal, then there may be a tendency toward secession even while identity issues are not really a factor.

If there is a tendency for countries to secede because they speak different languages or have different cultures and religions, how can the process  of unification progress? The issue here gets to the heart of why we have countries and how far disparate peoples can be united. There are, of course, examples of countries which have many different languages, ethnic groups, religions and identities. China, Russia and India contain many different peoples. But what do they share? Are they held together by a common identity? Do most citizens speak a common language as well as their own language? Are such states held together by choice or because they are never allowed a choice. Most nation states in the world do not give parts the right to decide whether they which to leave. The United States would fight to maintain Texas in the Union. Germany would not allow Bavaria a vote on secession, nor would France allow Corsica such a choice. But sometimes as we have seen in recent years nation states like the USSR reach a point where they collapse. What lessons can be drawn from this?

The USSR for all its faults had a common language (Russian) which everyone spoke at least in the workplace. It had a common ideology (communism), similar schooling and a common identity. If the USSR could not succeed even though much of it had centuries of shared history in the Russian Empire, then what hope is there for the EU or other attempts at multi-national unions? Given the choice the peoples of the Soviet Republics voted with their feet. At the point when the USSR was at its weakest it found that what it held in common was not enough. This demonstrated that all along the bonds of the USSR were not the bonds of choice, but rather lack of choice. They were “forced to be free”.

But is it possible then for different peoples to join together to form a new nation state? Yes it is. We have numerous examples of different people in history gradually joining. But what is the lesson from this process for future attempts to join different peoples? If the Soviet Union failed what lessons can be learned for the European Union?

The condition for the possibility of a successful union

What does the EU need to succeed? It needs its people to have a shared identity. East and West Germans were able to come together and unite because they thought of themselves as one people. West Germans were willing to transfer billions of Deutsche Marks to East Germany. But they are not willing to transfer money to Greeks. Why? They don’t think that they are the same people as Greeks. Greeks and Germans are both Europeans, but this common identity is not enough for them to think of themselves as countrymen. They do not feel as if they share a common identity. Without that common identity it is hard to see how the European Union can become a nation state. This after all is the goal. It is the reason that the EU introduced a single currency and border free travel. It is the reason why the rule of Brussels supersedes national rule. But how then can EU political union ever be successful without a common identity?

How is it possible to create a common EU identity? There needs to be a common language and common education. There would have to be a common language like in the USSR (Russian) that is spoken in every EU workplace. The obvious candidate is English.  This massively help free movement of people for everyone. In this case, if I trained to be an accountant I could work just as easily in Germany as in Greece. At present I can’t do this as for linguistic reasons. The United States works as a union because I can live and work in any state without much difficulty. The same was true in the USSR. The reason for this above all else was a common language. Without a common language the attempt to create a state from different countries will lead either to force or failure.

But even here there is no guarantee. Unification didn’t work in the USSR.  There are numerous secession movements in Europe often even when the people involved are very similar, speak more or less the same language and have been part of the same nation state for centuries.

The problem is that as soon as one secession movement succeeds it tends to encourage others. In a very short time Yugoslavia went from being one country to being seven or perhaps eight depending on how you count. If every European secession movement succeeded the number of European countries would more than treble. There are over 185 different ethnic groups in Russia and 22 different Republics. If each of them demanded secession, there would be chaos and war. The same can be said for many other countries. Imagine if India or China attempted to split up along ethnic or linguistic lines. The problem is that all of these people are mixed. There are no clear boundaries dividing one group from another. Anyway if the world’s nations started splitting up where would this stop? It would be a retrograde step taking us eventually back to the warring tribes of the Roman Empire.

Could the USA face fresh secession problems not only over political difference, but also because of the changing ethnic and linguistic makeup of its population? The middle states and coastal states are very different. What would happen if Hispanics became a majority in some western states? Could they ask for reunification with Mexico?

Czechs and Slovaks are so similar that only they can tell that they are in any way different. If even people who are this similar cannot bear to live in the same nation state, how can we expect a nation state called the EU to succeed?

If a successful country like the UK is in danger of falling apart even though the only difference between Scotland and England is an accent, how can we expect Spaniards and Poles to live in the same nation state?

The right of secession versus the nation state’s right to territorial integrity

Under what circumstances is secession justified? There is a difference of opinion about this in various parts of the world. China under no circumstances will allow secession. If Taiwan declared independence there might well be war. Tibet has no choice but to remain a part of China.

Likewise in the USA they moved from the Constitution saying that anyone can throw off a Government they don’t like to the Gettysburg Address, which is about how a democracy can long endure in the face of attempts to break it up. Secession is seen as a threat to democracy by Lincoln. The Gettysburg Address together with the United States Constitution form the foundations of modern western democracy. But they are going in different directions and appear to contradict each other. 

Is it anti-democratic to prevent a part of a country seceding if it wishes to? After all, the majority of voters in the southern states did want secession. There is no question of this. The results of the 1860 Presidential Election show it. By what right were they prevented by force of arms?

The USSR allowed the Republics to secede. But Russia did not allow Chechnya to leave. Was this just because of the chaos in 1991? If given the chance again would Putin, or someone similar, try to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union by force? If he had no-one could complain that Crimea had changed its Republic or that the Donbass had moved from the Ukrainian SSSR to the Russian SSSR. These would have been internal Soviet matters.

If Ukraine has the right to leave the USSR, why doesn’t Crimea have the right to leave Ukraine?

There is a tension between the right of Ukraine to keep its territory intact and the right of Crimea to leave. These rights are balanced rather like the balance between the US Constitution and the Gettysburg Address.  There is a contradiction at the heart of the foundation documents of western democracy. A tension between the American right to independence from Britain, but the lack of the Confederacy’s right to leave the USA. Is it simply a matter of might is right? How are we to balance the rights of unity and the rights of secession? Both involve self-determination of the whole people versus a part of the people.

Most examples of secession take place after political collapse or war

The Russian Revolution led to Finnish, Polish and Baltic States’ independence. The fall of the USSR led to independence for the Soviet Republics. But it went further. Transnistria seceded from Moldova. Nagorno-Karabak seceded from Azerbaijan and over time there were further conflicts. Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceded from Georgia. These secessions are not recognised by most of the world. But what makes one secession justified while another is not? How do we decide which to recognise and which to ignore?

In general it is unusual for secession to happen peacefully with neither political collapse nor war. Few countries in the world would allow a part to democratically vote to leave the whole. Exceptions to this include the UK and Canada. Spain is reluctant to allow Catalonia a vote on secession. But why is it fine for Scotland and Quebec to have a vote but not Catalonia? Why if it is all right for Scotland to have a vote should the USA be justified in preventing secession by force? Would the USA still use force if Texas tried to leave?

Given that there is a right to secession how on earth can the EU have any long term future? The EU is not at present a nation state, for which reason leaving it is not strictly speaking secession. But could it reach a stage where the EU became a nation state that forbade members from leaving, just as Spain forbids Catalonia. Unless the EU forbade members leaving it is hard to see how it can have a long term future. 

But what would such a refusal look like? What if Poland became so thoroughly sick of EU membership that it decided to leave? What if it had a revolt against EU membership which was then crushed by EU troops? This would look awfully like the revolts of 1830 or 1863 against the Tsar.

So long as people have a Polish, or a German or a Greek identity and so long as they don’t share the identity of their fellow EU citizens, for so long the EU project is in danger. Unifying only works when there is a common identity such as was the case with Italian and German unification. But there is no strong European identity. The difference between someone from Portugal and Hungary is just too great for them to share an identity. They don’t even both speak Indo-European languages. They probably know next to nothing about the history or culture of each other’s countries. There is nothing to unify because there is nothing in common.

At some point a political crisis is liable to envelop the EU. If the UK can successfully leave the EU without disaster, it will make it much easier for someone else. At some point a politician will be elected somewhere who realises that leaving the Eurozone and devaluing is a better alternative to years of recession and austerity. Once one goes, another will soon follow.

The EU is trying to unify that which is dissimilar without trying in any way to make it similar. Secession is a threat to any nation state even when the people living in it are similar (see UK, Czechoslovakia). It is hard to see how the EU can avoid eventual secession and following in the footsteps of the USSR for the simple reason that it lacks even those advantages that the USSR had.

People are by nature tribal. We prefer to live with people who are similar to us. This is something that goes back to the time when we first emerged from caves and began tilling the land. It is the desire to live with people who are similar that explains why we have countries where people are broadly from the same tribe. They speak the same language, worship the same God, have the same culture and tastes. This is a deep rooted part of human nature. If it were not, we would not have developed countries at all.

But given that human beings on the whole wish to live in countries where people are similar to us, the idea of a world government falls by the wayside as does the idea of a Federal United States of Europe. It will be contrary to the basic desire of people to live in a nation state with people who are similar to them. In the end Poles mostly prefer to live with Poles, Germans prefer to live with Germans. Until they have the same identity there is no point trying to make them live in the same country. 

History shows Germans and Poles living together for centuries without a common identity emerging. The end of that project happened between 1939 and 1945. If hundreds of years of sharing a territory ended in the expulsion of the Germans from Polish lands, it is hard to see how these people can ever form a common identity owing to the EU. 

The modern experiment of trying to change human nature by making us live in a nation state called the EU, as also making us live with mass migration from other countries and cultures, is going to fail. The USSR tried to change human nature and spent 70 failing to do so. Human nature is deep rooted and goes back 40,000 years. We prefer to live with our own kind and until you make Poles the same as Greeks each of them speaking the same common language and eating much the same food, you will find that they do not think of themselves as compatriots. For this reason they cannot very well live as part of the same country. If people cannot live together it is better that they live separately.

Saturday, 28 July 2018

We've survived worse

It looks very much as if the Chequers deal has been rejected by M. Barnier. So Theresa May’s softest of soft Brexits isn’t enough. A plan that has outraged much of the Conservative Party, most Brexiteers and caused the resignation of any number of ministers still doesn’t satisfy the EU. What next?

Parliament has shut down. The politicians will now have a deserved holiday. But when they come back the fundamentals will still be the same. There are three options.

1. We could opt to Remain in the EU on the same terms as we had before.

2. We could decide that it is pointless negotiating with the EU and leave anyway without a deal.

3. We could submit to whatever terms the EU wants, agree to these and leave on that basis.

The only deal I want with the EU is something similar to the free trade deal they have made with Canada and other countries. The EU doesn’t interfere in the internal affairs of Canada. There is no free movement of people between the EU and Canada. EU law or EU law courts do not in any way control Canadian laws or Canadian law courts. Why can’t Britain have something similar?

The reason is Northern Ireland. Apparently a simple free trade deal with the whole of the UK outside of the EU’s Single Market and Custom’s Union would impose a hard border in Ireland.  The whole point of the Chequers plan is to so mimic the EU’s Customs Union and Single Market that there need be no border checks in Ireland. But what would happen if we left with no deal. Would there be border checks? No. The UK has promised not to man the border in Ireland. The Irish have no intention of manning their side of the border either. Moreover the EU has promised the Irish Government that if there is no deal there will be no requirement for anyone to man the border. So neither the EU, the British, nor the Irish want or intend to man the border. Yet this and really this alone is preventing us from having a free trade deal. It is necessary to conclude that this problem is manufactured bogus and designed to force Britain to accept the worst possible deal with the EU.

What does the EU want? It most wants us to stay in the EU. If that isn’t possible it wants us to leave in such a way that we cannot make a success of Brexit and thus be a positive example to others.

So we could choose option number one. We could decide that leaving the EU is impossible or that it would do immense damage to the economy. Why would it do this damage? The reason is that the EU has come up with a bogus reason for making it impossible for the UK to have a free trade deal like the one that it has with Canada.

What if we chose option number two. We just go to M. Barnier and do what he wants. How much softer will Brexit have to get before M. Barnier is happy? I suspect we would have to agree to remain in the Customs Union, possibly the Single Market and we would have to accept free movement of people. We would have to accept that EU law remained supreme and that the European Court of Justice was higher than any British court. We would likewise have to pay not merely the £38 Billion divorce fee, but an ongoing yearly fee not dissimilar to the one that we paid as EU members. This is the price that the EU wants for us to trade with them freely. I would prefer remaining in the EU to this.

If leaving the EU is truly impossible, then it is better by far for Theresa May to go on television and admit that we tried to leave, but we couldn’t do it. There is no point having a referendum on something that is impossible. Better to just admit that the 2016 EU referendum was a charade because the EU really is a prison without doors. In this way we would join the long list of countries that voted against the EU and were later forced to change their minds.

What would be the consequences of this? In the short term there would be none. We would all get on with our lives. There wouldn’t be any economic disruption next March. But there would be a sullen sort of anger in the hearts of many voters. There would be a sense that politics was pointless and that elections didn’t matter. There would be pessimism about the future and a loss of hope that real change was possible. Long term this sort of thing withers a country.

What would be the point of ever having a referendum again about anything? If it turned out that the fifth largest economy in the world couldn’t leave a union of forty years, who would believe that Scotland could leave a union of three hundred years? Moreover, even if Scotland at some point voted to leave the UK, what would prevent the UK negotiating in the same way as the EU in order to give Scotland either independence in name only or else the chance to repent of its sins and remain?

But once you say to people that their political ideals are pointless that real change cannot be achieved by means of the ballot box, you open the way to a poisonous mixture of apathy and extremism. If Britain either fails to leave the EU or leaves in such a way that it is indistinguishable from remaining, there will be consequences for our democracy that are completely unknown and unknowable. I fear this far more than leaving without a deal.

After her holiday Theresa May should make a final offer to the EU. We want a Canada style free trade deal that applies to the whole of the UK including Northern Ireland. We are not going to allow any sort of internal border in the Irish Sea. If this is unacceptable she should say there is nothing more to discuss and announce to the British public that we are preparing to leave without a deal.

Leaving the EU without a deal would no doubt involve some short term difficulty, but we ought not to leave on terms that are intended to do us long term harm. In our long history we have from time to time had to struggle in order to do what was right. The beginning of the First World War brought with it financial chaos, but neither the government nor the people wavered in its resolve. A little courage is required, this time, but only a little. We will have to adjust in order to trade with the EU on WTO terms. The EU might be awkward for a while, but this won’t last long. Whatever happens, we will manage and it will be worth it. We survived Napoleon’s blockade and eventually he ended up on one of our tiny islands in the middle of the Atlantic.

We have seen off worse than the likes of Barnier.

Friday, 27 July 2018

Trump the usurper

American politics was supposed to continue to be a dynastic struggle between the Clintons and the Bushes. It was supposed to be this way as that would mean nothing would change. Trump is a usurper. It is for this reason above all that he is so hated by the liberal establishment.

We have got to the stage however where everything Trump does is met with fury. This is the case whether he does something stupid or something sensible. Trump only has to exist to cause liberal anger. I can think of no US President in history who has caused such anger from opponents apart perhaps from Lincoln and his election caused the Civil War.

 I think the main reasons for Trump causing such a degree of fury are these:

1. He boasted that he could grab women by the p*ssy.

2. He wants to ban people travelling to the US from certain Muslim countries.

3. He wants to build a wall between Mexico and the USA.

4. He beat Hilary Clinton.

5. The Russians interfered in the election.

Like everyone else I found Trump’s comments about grabbing women to be vulgar, but which of us has not in private said something outrageous? Have you ever said something along the lines of I could throttle him? Have you ever made a joke that you wouldn’t like to be repeated on national television? Have you ever said something insulting about a politician, an entertainer? Have you ever in private done something you are rather ashamed of? Go on then cast the first stone.

Did Trump actually grab women? Who knows? I would guess that he probably did. But how many rich and powerful older men have been able to touch young beautiful women where they please? Are we to convict all of them? It’s not as if they are doing anything illegal. Rich, powerful men don’t need to do anything illegal to sleep with young beautiful women. They just need to have lots of money. Do you really suppose that Melania married Trump because of his looks? So Trump may have in a vulgar way said something outrageous, but he also said something that is true. So long as women are attracted by wealth and power, ugly, fat, old men will be able to sleep with whomsoever they please. If women don’t like this, it is up to us to say “No I don’t want your riches, your power or whatever jobs you might offer.”

I have little doubt that Trump has had numerous affairs, but this is a private matter between him and his wife or wives between him and his God or gods if he has any. Trump has been convicted of precisely nothing and if we start convicting men because they boast about their sexual prowess in private we are frankly going to need to build a lot more jails.

Trump completely bungled his attempt to ban people from certain Muslim countries because he was too honest about it. But I strongly suspect a majority of Americans would like security to be a factor in the issuing of visas and in fulfilling US duties with regard to asylum. Such policies however ought not to be discriminatory. It should be harder for people from any country that hates America to travel to America.

People from safe, prosperous countries should be able to travel with ease to America for holiday and business purposes. It need not matter what they believe. But if people are unfortunate enough to come from countries that regularly produce terrorists it is only sensible if security checks are made before granting them visas. But this should equally apply to countries that terrorise by means of Novichok as those who terrorise by means of flying planes into towers.

Likewise there is little reason for America to fear that tourists from Japan will overstay their welcome, so it makes sense to make travel from Japan as easy as possible. But there are large numbers of people from certain countries who enter the US on a tourist visa and never go home. It therefore makes sense to make it considerably harder for these people to obtain visas.

With cleverness Trump could have limited the possibility for people from various countries to obtain visas without doing so in a discriminatory way. He could likewise have limited the possibilities of people entering the US illegally from Mexico and staying illegally without having to build a wall and without treating Mexicans in any way cruelly. Britain is surrounded by sea, but even this doesn’t prevent people from arriving illegally. So the issue isn’t fundamentally whether you have a moat a wall or whether you don't. What matters is whether those who arrive illegally believe that they have an excellent chance of staying. If Trump wishes to discourage illegal migration, the key is not to reward it.

We have borders for a reason. We treat citizens of our sovereign state differently from those from other sovereign states. We have a special duty to pay our taxes for the welfare of our fellow citizens, not to pay for the welfare of everyone in the world. We would be bankrupt very quickly if we tried to provide the same level of public service we get in Britain to absolutely everyone in the world. For this reason we have a border and limit who can enter that border. If we didn’t we rapidly would cease to have our sovereign state at all. If you really wish to have completely open borders and unlimited migration, you are saying that you wish to abolish sovereign states and simply have the world completely without states and borders. There is an argument for this, but if that is your argument then make it and put it to the electorate honestly. But I’m afraid you will get very few votes.

For this reason we simply cannot allow unlimited economic migration from anywhere. Not only would this make our system of paying taxes in order to gain various benefits, unworkable, but still more crucially it would damage the countries from which the economic migrants have come. If the best and brightest from Mexico understandably hope for a better life in the USA their talents won’t be used to help Mexico become a more developed and more prosperous country.

It is for this reason that it is in both the interests of the US and Mexico that migration between these places is managed and limited. The best way to do this however is to make it impossible for illegal migrants to function inside the USA, by for instance making simple everyday tasks require identification only available to US citizens, and to be strict with those who are caught living in the US illegally so that criminality is seen not to pay. At the same time the USA should be doing all it can to help Mexico develop into a place where people want to stay rather than a place they want to leave. The same goes for everywhere not just Mexico. We must not reward people smugglers, but instead use free trade rather than corrupt aid to encourage people to make their own countries more prosperous.

Trump is hated most because he beat Hilary Clinton. Liberal America was looking forward to feeling good about itself. Identity politics had given us a black president, next it had to give us a female president, after that it would be time for a black female president with a First Lady. Obama’s most important characteristic was something that he was born with. It didn’t much matter if he was good, bad or indifferent. It mattered only that he was black. So too Hilary Clinton was born with her most important characteristic. This is the problem with identity politics. It makes people cease to care whether an author is a good writer. What matters is that she’s not dead, white nor a man. We cease to judge according to talent or character, but instead by whether someone is female, gay, disabled, transgender or from an ethnic minority. It’s a sort of apartheid, only in reverse. Whatever is not white, not straight and not male has virtue. Those liberal Americans who are white, straight and male get to feel a wonderful frisson of guilt which can be overcome by voting first for Obama and then for Hilary Clinton. At this point they are cleansed and can feel virtuous again.

But Trump took this moment away from them. There was no moment of feeling warm and gooey because America had elected its first female president. Instead millions of Americans had demonstrated their contempt for identity politics. Identity politics lost. Just like the Remainers they have been fighting a rearguard battle ever since.

Liberal America has been desperately trying to annul the result of the Presidential election since the moment it was announced. It has used the CIA and the FBI to attempt to thwart that result and hopefully annul it.

Trump’s sin is that the Russians wanted him to win and almost certainly interfered in the election. But the Russians have been interfering in all sorts of elections lately. They were probably involved in Brexit, in Macron’s election and the Scottish and Catalan independence votes. What are we to do? Shall we annul all elections where it can be shown that the Russians were probably interfering? The trouble is that lots of people from all around the world interfere. Obama advised British Brexit voters that we would go to the back of the queue. The head of the IMF told us that Brexit would be a disaster. Sometimes this interference works, more often the voters just ignore it. Did Russian interference in the US elections mean Trump won? Who knows? But do we really want to go down the route of saying that if it can be proved that the Russians helped one candidate, that candidate must lose? That too might allow the Russians to choose who they want to be president. They might for instance “support” the candidate they want least.

Did Trump’s team contact the Russians? Probably. Does it matter? No. I’m sure many previous US presidents elect and presidential candidates have informally contacted the Soviets. It’s sensible politics and benefits security to have such contacts. If someone showed that Kennedy had contacted Khrushchev prior to gaining power, I would consider this to have been quite sensible. Let them try to develop a relationship as soon as possible. Perhaps it might help in a crisis involving Cuban missiles.

The problem with the liberal rearguard action is that it is trying to prevent Trump doing his job. Whatever he does causes outrage, even above average economic growth figures. How dare he be successful.

I disagree with Trump on many issues. I especially dislike his protectionist tendencies, but we must give him a chance. It just might be that his threats to raise tariffs against China, the EU and Canada will make it necessary for these places to be less protectionist. It might on the other hand lead to a  trade war where everyone loses. Let's wait and see. Let's be open about the possibility of a Trump success rather than decide we have inevitable failure before anything has even been attempted. 

I think Trump’s unorthodox methods of diplomacy might bring about peace in the Korean peninsula, which might ultimately lead to reunification. This would massively benefit the people of North Korea and would make East Asia much more secure and prosperous.

It looks as Trump and Putin have come to some sort of an arrangement with regard to Syria which will put Syria in the Russian sphere of influence. The Israelis have been involved in the negotiations and clearly think this might improve Israel’s security situation. The main benefit is that Jihad will have been crushed in Syria. The price is that Assad will remain in power. Is it worth it? Yes. If we had backed Assad from the beginning we might have avoided war. We must start to think strategically and in terms of what is in our foreign policy interest rather than what makes our foreign policy look virtuous. This is how Great Power diplomacy keeps the peace. It always was this way. 

The price for peace in the Middle East will I strongly suspect be an eventual peace deal between the USA and Russia ending the Little Ice Age of Cold War II. This will mean that sanctions against Russia will cease and Russia and Ukraine will have to come to an agreement about their borders. Russia will keep what it has, but will have to promise not to play quite so rough in the future. Learn to live with this. The deal won't get any better.

If Trump achieves all of these things then he will deserve to win a second term. He might even go down in history as a second Ronald Reagan. It is all too early to judge. But it would be better for the whole world if liberal fury over Hilary Clinton not winning the election and Trump’s boast about being a cat lover didn’t spoil the best chance we have had for peace in some time.