In the UK as the Brexit deadlines loom large we see the party political questions seemingly drowning out rational economic calculation.
Boris Johnson want to replace Theresa May. So does Jeremy Corbyn. The DUP say a border in the Irish Sea is a red line and they will remove support for May's government if she 'concedes' on this issue. The temperature in short is rising rapidly.
Does this mean that politics are now in the ascendancy and rational economic calculations must take a back seat? Or is this just surface noise? I wonder...
There's nothing at all rational about Brexit! From day one it was caused by a small cabal of fixated, irrational Tories, badly handled by their leaders who knew not how to lead. No one else cared about the EU at that point!
Fired up by a referendum long silent idiots were enabled to vent their new found spleens. Small minded racism against valuable labour from Eastern Europe. Anti Franco-German loathing. Manglewursel lovers vomiting at the thought of coq-au-vin, sauerkraut, and all things foreign.
A government willing to be dependent on the DUP. An opportunistic opposition unable to formulate an alternative. French loathing of English criticism of the EU, raising the stakes after each meeting, infused with Gallic bile. You'd be bloody lucky to find reason in any of that. Not even politics. It's tribal war now. To the bitter end, I fear....
Christopher NOCK
Dear Ronaldo Munck and readers,
The question of politics taking over from rational calculation, especially in a case like the Brexit is quite a dicey one and the response would depend on from which angle a researcher would like to approach it.
Whereas some will view it from the angle of a rational choice or public choice theory, other's will simply argue for a question of the UK's sovereignty - the fact that London does not want to take instructions from Brussels - at least not anymore.
From my early ages in school, I have been taught to understand that the British Parliament can do all things except from changing a man into a woman and vice versa. At least from the proponents of the British sovereign argument, this assertion seems to be loosing its validity and must not be allowed. Thus, to this group Brexit is rational - not just political.
Others may disagree, but that's the beauty (or maybe, the messy) of democracy. Whether we would want to use a public choice theory or a rationalist argument to understand a phenomenon like Brexit may matter less once the citizenry are determined to make a choice - since they may be the ultimate beneficiaries or burden bearers of their own choices (though this choice may have ripple effects on non-citizens both within the UK and elsewhere).
I don't really understand why you seek the approach you do, Thomas. Very little political discussion or debate takes place from shared principles of perspectives. And that includes the highest level academic discussion. Your approach would narrow any debate to those with shared perspectives, and that's a very odd form of political debate. I wouldn't accept anyone's desire for a shared perspective. I probably wouldn't agree with it in any event, and it would put me on their ground, not them on mine!
NOCK
Dear Prof. Nock, and readers,
Maybe I have to clarify myself. I’m not taking a stand with any group - be it Brexiteers or pro-EU. I’m only approaching the question from how a proponent of the UK sovereignty may perceive Brexit.
I can equally argue from the public choice theory perspective as alluded to by Nock in the earlier submission. I just thought to leave that for others to handle. The point is, at the end of the day, the will of the people must stand - that’s the essence of democracy, at least as we’ve come to know.
Okay, that's a little clearer for me, thanks. I'd say that being able to argue things from different perspectives has its uses, but seems ultimately a path to emptiness. I once taught a most intelligent graduate student at Oxford. She produced an essay for me that was very close to what I might have written on the subject. I congratulated her, and asked how she had come by the argument. She said, "by listening to you, and giving you what you wanted." A fascinating talent, but quite sad really.
I am not against divining other people's core principles and employing those to condemn their conclusions. I did that in my DPhil thesis to libertarianism. It served certain purposes, but I doubt it ever changed the mind of any truly committed libertarian. And there's the rub. Rather like another Brexit referendum won't change the decision we must live with!
So I see limited potential in arguing things from different perspectives. Politics is more about prejudice and persuasion than truth and facts. Truth may help persuade, but to a very limited extent. Especially now few believe such a thing exists.
NOCK
Very interesting responses from Thomas and Christopher.
Rational choice is one way of making decisions. I agree, there is little evidence of that here whatever you think of the issues.
But sovereignty platform is another approach I agree.
However what does that mean today in practice? Take back control of our borders, trade, money etc etc. But has sovereignty not been pooled since at least the advent of globalisation circa 1990 if not much earlier?
I think there is a discourse or ideology of sovereignty at play here but if you could get into the heads of Johnson/Davis/Rees Moggs you might find a very different motivation.
Well, perhaps, as I've been thinking lately, the first version of something akin was Repxit? IE when the Republic left the UK? 1923? I know much of the nastiness went on prior to exit, now it will go on after, but is there any rough similarity there Ronaldo? Anything to glean?
NOCK
OK Ireland or the 26 Counties breaking away from The UK Of GB and Ireland in 1921? What does it tell us? That was a brutal war and I hope that will not happen between GB and EU, it won't of course.
A useful guide to options for NI, now at the crux of the matter, is to be found in recent PhD/book by Mary Murphy http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/30/the-backstop-is-dividing-northern-ireland-we-urgently-need-new-talks/
She thinks special status for NI is the least disruptive option even for unionists and the border poll would be off the agenda for a good while
ochlocracy? yes reason and rational choice out the window, but not sure if this about majority choice , let me think about it!
Well, of course, it's a perspective with a long, long history. Plato's Gorgias comes readily to mind, and Neitzsche's condemnation of liberal-democracy. Both ended up praising elite rule against democracy. Philosophers or Ubermensch. Choose your poison!
NOCK
Well Ronaldo, I was trying to reopen old wounds, and to some extent it was a stupid question from an ignorant soul! But, I think my concern was about what became of the Republic after separation. My guess is that, by the standards of the day, the Republic was rural. That it became isolated. And the Catholic church tightened its grip to define the culture. A little like Quebec prior to its "quiet revolution."
Now, the UK is about to become very isolated. It's industry is likely to recede in quantity. It will become increasingly impoverished. Will it pine for some mythical past? Will it seeks solace in a mythical future. What do the Irish runes say?
NOCK
Christopher Nock and readers,
Should politics be necessarily "more about prejudice and persuasion than truth and facts?"
Though I believe that's a sad reality, I equally believe all hope is not lost, at least if this generation of scholars and policy makers will make the necessary effort to guide and direct issues such as Brexit on the right path while inculcating in the youth a sense of moral truism.
It's a lovely thought Thomas. It shouldn't be, but is, as you recognise. I think it would be more noble to try to change things than cynically accept them as they are. But, as I know, it's often a thankless and exhausting task. I'm too old now. Please do take the baton.
NOCK
Ireland after independence did indeed retreat inwards and was indeed dominated culturally and socially by the Catholic church. But those days are long gone. Referendums on same sex marriage and abortion recently show a sea change in attitudes. I would put a lot of modernisation and secularisation down to joining the EU in 1972
An interesting thought that UK maye be heading backwards towards isolation and dreams of glories past. Not good....
What might those idiosyncratic calculations be? electoral advantage do you mean? that would not be irrational necessarily though would it?
The Irish Border has its own say on this:
https://twitter.com/BorderIrish/status/1048520068013969408?s=20
agreed
see
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/08/world-leaders-told-they-must-act-over-climate-change-cliff-edge
politicians not listening to scientists? why?
- Badges
- Science topic