This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/bullish-brexitism-taken-by-the-horns
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| ‘Bullish Brexitism’ taken by the horns | ‘Bullish Brexitism’ taken by the horns |
| (4 months later) | |
| Letters | |
| Fri 22 Sep 2017 18.28 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 16.33 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| I have no brief for AC Grayling (or John Stuart Mill – a complete red herring), but Giles Fraser’s latest bit of bullish “man-of-the-people” Brexitism is simple-minded (Loose canon, 22 September). He’s right that we would want a heart surgeon to perform heart surgery; or a competent car mechanic to fix the gearbox; or a reliable solicitor if the surgeon – or the mechanic – screwed up. But the decision to go ahead – with the operation, repair or law suit – is down to the individual who has – we hope – taken the relevant expert advice. When it comes to political decisions – especially (as we now, belatedly, realise) fiendishly complicated decisions like Brexit – diverse expertise (economic, financial, political, diplomatic) is again essential in order to inform the individual. But, like Fraser’s own arguments, the 2016 referendum campaign was couched in vague, disingenuous and dogmatic terms. Slogans (“take back control”) and lies (£350m a week for the NHS) drowned out reasoned and informed (ie expert) arguments. So the voter voted in a cognitive vacuum, on the basis of prejudices and hunches rather than detailed empirical data. Maybe all elections are, to some extent, like that; but referendums which, as in this case, may determine the course of a country for decades, on the basis of a narrowly split decision, are particularly dangerous. Presumably the Rev Fraser would welcome similar exercises in “direct democracy” relating to immigration, capital punishment, prison sentencing policy, or foreign aid – the “experts”, meantime, suitably silenced and sneered at?Alan KnightEmeritus professor of history, Oxford University | I have no brief for AC Grayling (or John Stuart Mill – a complete red herring), but Giles Fraser’s latest bit of bullish “man-of-the-people” Brexitism is simple-minded (Loose canon, 22 September). He’s right that we would want a heart surgeon to perform heart surgery; or a competent car mechanic to fix the gearbox; or a reliable solicitor if the surgeon – or the mechanic – screwed up. But the decision to go ahead – with the operation, repair or law suit – is down to the individual who has – we hope – taken the relevant expert advice. When it comes to political decisions – especially (as we now, belatedly, realise) fiendishly complicated decisions like Brexit – diverse expertise (economic, financial, political, diplomatic) is again essential in order to inform the individual. But, like Fraser’s own arguments, the 2016 referendum campaign was couched in vague, disingenuous and dogmatic terms. Slogans (“take back control”) and lies (£350m a week for the NHS) drowned out reasoned and informed (ie expert) arguments. So the voter voted in a cognitive vacuum, on the basis of prejudices and hunches rather than detailed empirical data. Maybe all elections are, to some extent, like that; but referendums which, as in this case, may determine the course of a country for decades, on the basis of a narrowly split decision, are particularly dangerous. Presumably the Rev Fraser would welcome similar exercises in “direct democracy” relating to immigration, capital punishment, prison sentencing policy, or foreign aid – the “experts”, meantime, suitably silenced and sneered at?Alan KnightEmeritus professor of history, Oxford University |
| • Giles Fraser’s excellent article has one inaccuracy. It is not true to say that “the majority of those who voted on 23 June 2016 disagreed with him about the UK being a part of the European Union”. As research has shown, the majority voted leave for many reasons but rarely because they wanted the UK to leave the EU. Their reasons ranged from xenophobia, dislike of the London liberal elite, through anti-austerity to Labour party voters who were simply voting against David Cameron. Not forgetting otherwise staunch Europhile socialists who voted leave in the hope that it would cause the Conservative party to irreversibly fracture – a hope that Boris Johnson continues to feed.Terry LearyRugby, Warwickshire | • Giles Fraser’s excellent article has one inaccuracy. It is not true to say that “the majority of those who voted on 23 June 2016 disagreed with him about the UK being a part of the European Union”. As research has shown, the majority voted leave for many reasons but rarely because they wanted the UK to leave the EU. Their reasons ranged from xenophobia, dislike of the London liberal elite, through anti-austerity to Labour party voters who were simply voting against David Cameron. Not forgetting otherwise staunch Europhile socialists who voted leave in the hope that it would cause the Conservative party to irreversibly fracture – a hope that Boris Johnson continues to feed.Terry LearyRugby, Warwickshire |
| • Giles Fraser denounces AC Grayling’s “sneering” at the “wrong sort of voter”, ironically by endorsing Micheal Gove’s sneering at the wrong sort of expert. The ramifications of Grayling’s position are indeed troubling, but to be taken in by Gove’s utterly cynical attempt to undermine fact-based expertise would seem to be making his argument for him.Dr Nathan JohnstoneNorth Shields, Tyne and Wear | • Giles Fraser denounces AC Grayling’s “sneering” at the “wrong sort of voter”, ironically by endorsing Micheal Gove’s sneering at the wrong sort of expert. The ramifications of Grayling’s position are indeed troubling, but to be taken in by Gove’s utterly cynical attempt to undermine fact-based expertise would seem to be making his argument for him.Dr Nathan JohnstoneNorth Shields, Tyne and Wear |
| • Tim Gossling (Letters, 21 September) is correct that Ghana produces chocolate, but he is not correct to claim that the chocolate cannot be exported to the EU tariff-free. Under circumstances it can, although non-tariff issues are probably a greater constraint. While far from perfect, the EU offers Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries better trading terms than they get from other partners (such as the US or China). Britain, as a member of the EU, played an important role in negotiating these agreements. | • Tim Gossling (Letters, 21 September) is correct that Ghana produces chocolate, but he is not correct to claim that the chocolate cannot be exported to the EU tariff-free. Under circumstances it can, although non-tariff issues are probably a greater constraint. While far from perfect, the EU offers Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries better trading terms than they get from other partners (such as the US or China). Britain, as a member of the EU, played an important role in negotiating these agreements. |
| It was Britain joining the EU that led to the preferences conferred on French ex-colonies being extended to British ex-colonies and, ultimately, preferential trade agreements with the ACP. The presumption is that the EU will continue to honour its existing agreements with the whole ACP post-Brexit. It is somewhat ironic that Britain will need to negotiate new trade agreements with all countries when it ceases to be a member and therefore no longer party to EU agreements (although remaining in the customs union would make it much easier). Given the “low tax, low regulation” mantra of many Brexiteers, there is no reason to expect Britain would offer ACP terms as good as they get from the EU.Oliver MorrisseyNottingham | It was Britain joining the EU that led to the preferences conferred on French ex-colonies being extended to British ex-colonies and, ultimately, preferential trade agreements with the ACP. The presumption is that the EU will continue to honour its existing agreements with the whole ACP post-Brexit. It is somewhat ironic that Britain will need to negotiate new trade agreements with all countries when it ceases to be a member and therefore no longer party to EU agreements (although remaining in the customs union would make it much easier). Given the “low tax, low regulation” mantra of many Brexiteers, there is no reason to expect Britain would offer ACP terms as good as they get from the EU.Oliver MorrisseyNottingham |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Brexit | |
| European Union | |
| Giles Fraser | |
| Europe | |
| Trade policy | |
| Ghana | |
| letters | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |