Has Brexit really failed? It’s too early to say

According to one tale, the great Chinese statesman Zhou Enlai was asked “What are the consequences of the French Revolution?” To which he replied “it’s too early to say.” Like many good stories, it’s probably apocryphal; but it illustrates a wise truth. Don’t rush to judgement. In historical terms, the UK decision to quit the EU in 2016 was a seismic event at least as big as the French Revolution, or China’s own Cultural Revolution. Nine years on from the ballot, and three from that final sundering, can we make out anything at all?

Superficially, the case against Brexit appears to be overwhelming. GDP is down by anything between 2-5% each year.[1] Business investment and capital formation have taken a severe hit [2] Life expectancy, that key indicator of a thriving society, has actually started to fall is some areas. As for the much wished-for trade deals with the Leavers’ beloved White Commonwealth, these are either highly disadvantageous the to UK (Australia, New Zealand) or non- existent (Canada). Meanwhile the UK Government rushes to subsidise factories here, there and everywhere, with money which might be better spent on Defence or transport, all in the name of keeping a residual manufacturing presence. Case closed? No. Firstly because the analysis is too simple. Secondly, because we think that humans are not, primarily economic animals.

For starters, the above-quoted statistics are UK-wide. They disguise the fact that certain regions have weathered the Brexit storm better than others. Northern Ireland (membership of Single Market) and London and the South East ( residual proximity to the Continent) are two cases against. As for the life expectancy figures-these are a long term trend, and probably owe their origin to the years after 2010 when Remainers Cameron and Osborne introduced their programme of austerity.

For the second argument: let’s go back to basics. The European Union was founded first as a peace project, and only secondarily as an economic one (it was the failure to grasp this which led to the UK’s disastrous negotiating strategy-but that’s another story). The EU has indeed kept the peace between those ancient enemies Germany and France. But with the rise of Vladimir Putin, the days of peace are over-everywhere. As for prosperity-was it really all it was cracked up to be? More food seems mainly to have led to higher obesity. More money meant more fast cars, more items of throw-away fashion and easily- forgotten holidays. All of these may have to be dispensed with if our economies have to be diverted to defence. So-was Brexit simply an act of foresight, preparing the British people for the hard times that lay ahead? And there is one other factor, which we think is more important still.

When the UK coal miners struck in their bitter dispute of 1984-1985, they firmly declared one thing. It was not about money. It was, they said, about preserving community, belonging and their sense of identity.[3] And these feelings are rooted very deeply in the human psyche. Probably far deeper than a desire for shiny kitchens or luxurious furniture. These are the profound sentiments that Brexit touched upon-and we ignore them at our peril. History has not been kind to those mineworkers and the children, it is true. But it still remains to pass its judgement on the children of the Brexiteers. Let’s wait and see.

[1]https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/01/03/the-impact-of-brexit-in-charts

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/businessinvestment/apriltojune2021revisedresults

[3]https://www.channel4.com/programmes/miners-strike-1984-the-battle-for-britain/on-demand/73990-001

#UK #EU #brexit #gdp #miners strike #identity #trade

Why the origins of this blog go back to 1687

We have made no secret of it. This is a Whig blog, written, researched, and edited by a senior staff whose political and philosophical affiliations are all to that most progressive and enlightened segment of mankind. (what the rest of them in this building think, we have no idea) But where did the name come from-and what about that of the Tories, the very antithesis, nemesis and inveterate opponents of all that we hold most dear?

According to the admirable Lord Lexden, writing in House magazine [1], the earliest origins of the word “Whig” go back to the bitter constitutional debates which followed the English Civil War. The “Whigs” were generally in favour of some kind of Constitutional Monarchy along modern lines, and feared the autocratic tendencies of the Papacy. Their opponents (unjustly, of course) mocked them as “Whiggamaires” a kind of horse rustler from the wilder lands of Scotland. They labelled their opponents, who wished to see the succession of the devoutly Catholic James as “Tories” after lawless Irish thieves, whom they described as

“popishly affected, outlaws, robbers, such as our law saith have Caput Lupinum, fit and ready to be destroyed and knocked on the head by any one that could meet with them”.

A little strong,perhaps.

Now you might say that the programmes of both parties have changed a bit since then. But, is there just an underlying kernal of truth somewhere in the recondite reaches of History? Perhaps of psychological type and preference?. To be a Whig was to be essentially looking to the future, and to reach, gropingly, towards new ideas in governance, science and belief. To be a Tory was to cling to what was, toexalt Authority and Custom as the supreme arbiters. Has anything changed?

[1]https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/tale-two-parties-origin-tory-party

#tory #whig #liberal #new labour #parliament

Will the Millwall Molecule finally give us clean energy?

“Nobody likes us, we don’t care!” UK football fans will recognise the chant as the calling card of the fans of Millwall FC, who rejoice in their reputation as the hardest of hard nuts, feared by the followers of all other clubs. Which is a funny way to start a blog on nuclear fusion, most of whose exponents tend to be, to put it politely- in a very different place on the intellectual spectrum. But read on, gentle reader, read on.

LSS has always had a thing about nuclear fusion, that process whereby clashing hydrogen atoms should mimic the processes in the heart of the Sun, and thereby afford limitless supplies of clean, cheap energy. And recently, our early suspicions of all the money and effort thrown in over the last 70 years have been tempered by genuine reports of progress in the shape of short ignitions (LSS passim) OK, you’ve got the plasma nice and hot. But how do you hold there long enough to be any use. According to Darren Orf of Popular Mechanics, the answer is to use Tungsten. The South Korean KSTAR team have thrown away the carbon in their containment vessels and replaced it with this toughest, hardest of metals, normally used in things like light bulb filaments and the best knives. Now it will take its place at the cutting edge (another joke like that and you’re fired-ed) of what could be the most important research and development project on our planet this century.

Alright, Tungsten is an atom, not a molecule. Technically. But it’s hard, mate, as they say in South London. And thanks to it, we are ready to cast aside our earlier reservations and for the first time since about 1973, embrace hope.

_{thanks to P Seymour for this story}

[1]https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a46278296/south-korea-artificial-sun-fusion/

#tungsten #wolfram #nuclear fusion #plasma

Three good news stories: where there is reason , there is hope

Reason is the tool we use to turn facts into knowledge. Societies which use reason will have better lives, on the whole, than societies based on belief. Here are three stories which illustrate the practice of reason, by scientific research, demonstrate exactly that.

Cohort Studies of Cancer It’s nice when wet chemistry work in a lab, all white coats and benches, is combined with data analyses and number crunching- both sides get more out of their skills. Here, Cancer Research report on their programme TRACERxEVO which looks at the long term evolution of lung cancer in a group of patients, It’s already throwing up findings like molecular markers which might indicate when a tumour could return, helping treatment patterns and diagnoses in all kinds of ways. That has to be better than applying crystals, right?

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2022/11/09/tracerx-evo-a-new-programme-to-transform-lung-cancer-research/?urn=765570556&utm_medium=email&utm_sou

Zapping the the Zombies to stay young The Science desk at the Mail never sleeps, not even over Christmas Here’s one about a new protein called HKCD1 which seems to work at the level of mitochondria and lysosomes, thereby removing tired old cells from the body’s metabolism and allowing fresher, younger ones to come on through, as t’were. Has to be more value long term than all those extravagantly priced creams you see advertised in all those glossy magazines!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12918377/protein-removes-zombie-cells-cancer-alzheimers-disease.html

INTERLACE-reducing the fear of Cervical Cancer We’ll let Cancer Research speak for themselves here, and just embed a link for the hyper-interested:

Over the last decade, the number of deaths from cervical cancer has decreased by around a sixth (18%) in females in the UK (2017-2019). Thanks to INTERLACE, a clinical trial we funded, that rate could decrease even further. INTERLACE showed that giving people six weeks of chemotherapy before standard cervical cancer treatment of chemoradiation (CRT) could cut the risk of death or of the disease progressing by 35% when compared to CRT alone.“This is the biggest improvement in outcomes in this disease in over 20 years,” said Dr Mary McCormack, the lead investigator of the trial.

Surely this is better than just praying?

For over twenty years now, we have made a small but steady donation to Cancer Research UK The individual monthly sums are tiny. But their steady accumulation, above all as a stream that CRUK can rely on, makes a tangible difference. If everyone did it, it would pay for no end of new scientists and techniques like the ones above. And, as have said before on these blog pages, discoveries in one area have a happy way of spilling over into others. And so our last link is to their donations page Go on, give them a go. Even £2.00 a month will slowly build, and you won’t know you’re doing it.

Overseas readers-is there something like this in your country?

https://donate.cancerresearchuk.org/donate

#ageing #protein #rationalism #cancer

Immigration: Intriguing new research suggests this blog got it wrong

“When facts change, then I change my mind.” So said the great economist JM Keynes. It should be the guiding principle for every scientist and scholar. Now, some readers will recall several blogs we have made on immigration ( LSS June/July ’22;Nov ’22). We still think we were right to raise this issue. Because it seems to be of neuralgic importance. But we ascribed the basic cause to the movement of people from poor economies to richer ones. We have now seen good evidence that this belief, although not entirely wrong, is so simple as to be almost misleading. And we are now going to present you with that evidence, so you can judge for yourselves.

Of course immigration does indeed flow from poorer societies to richer ones, But not from the absolute dirt-poor countries. The bulk of immigration comes from middle income countries. According Hein de Haas. a Professor of Sociology who writes in the Guardian, anyway. [1] And why do they do it? To fill jobs in short contract, essentially unregulated labour markets in the host countries. The second link, from Nature Briefings, should allow you to drill down more into Professor Haas’ work (we hope the link works!) It’s called Prejudice Colours our View on Immigration, a title that says much:

Many of us have opinions about immigration, but most of us don’t fully understand it, suggests sociologist Hein de Haas in his impressively wide-ranging book How Migration Really Works. By busting myths that surround human mobility, de Haas provides a welcome corrective to common misconceptions, writes reviewer and migration scholar Alan Gamlen. “But with migration patterns shifting as the world rocks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s unclear for how long his conclusions will hold true,” writes Gamlen.Nature | 7 min read

There’s a lot of humility to go around for all of us here, not just LSS. Like, even when you think you have the answer, it may turn out to be only part of it. That sudden sweeping generalisations can be utterly wrong. Yet there remains one small observation in which we were right, You get very little immigration from richer countries(e.g. Switzerland, Denmark) to poorer ones(e.g UK) And we still think that, in there somewhere. lies the answer to all this angst.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/29/politicians-immigration-wrong-cheap-labour?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

#migration #immigration #emigration #inequality #economics