A fine balance between the breakup of Britain or the EU

After the British vote to leave the EU, what should the EU offer the new UK (or England)?

The first thing that the EU must offer is time. Time to let the Brits reflect on what they wish to do about their new position in Europe and whether they wish to do it together in the UK or separately.

This should not stop the EU from setting the maximum it can offer. There is an obvious answer to this, which is the signing of a European Economic Area agreement. This is the obvious offer whether the new Britain decides to rejoin EFTA or not.

This would allow the English to participate in the EU internal market which is what they value most.

However, this creates a major problem because it forces the signatories to accept the EU rules on free movement of people, goods and services without much substantive discussion. Yet, not being ruled by Brussels was precisely the main motive for the leave vote.

Without signing an EEA agreement Britain may be in a position similar to Switzerland, which also did not sign with fear of labor mobility and loss of independence. However the Swiss Cantons are not as pro-European as Scotland and Northern Ireland are.

So, what are the options?

Basically, the EU can design a new type of EEA agreement to meet the Swiss and British fears and hope that it would be enough to prevent the choice of independence in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Alternatively, it might advise the UK to rejoin EFTA with a promise to let Scotland and Ireland sign separate EEA agreements, by using a reverse of the formula found for the Norwegian Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. I doubt that this would be enough to stop the breakup of Britain, but it is worth consideration.

What the EU should not do, is to give Britain better terms than the current EEA members have or encourage a breakup of Britain. The first would encourage more EU exits and the second would weaken NATO’s role and the prospect for lasting security and peace in Europe.

So, let us hope that the European Council meeting this Tuesday to discuss what to do about Brexit is a calm one, which decides to preserve the unity of Britain and of the remaining EU above all else.

Brexit and direct democracy: the double referendum option

Now that a petition to hold a new referendum has surpassed the 3 million signatures I need to discuss this option which I left out in my previous post.

I left it out because it does not solve the basic problem of direct democracy.

While a simple majority (even by one vote) is reasonable for easily reversible decisions, like the election of a parliament for a legislative period of four or five years, it should not be enough for decade lasting decisions. Typically, constitutions and major international treaties should last for several decades and not be subject to frequent changes because of the huge costs in terms of economic and political stability. Therefore, a repeat referendum is not a solution to heal a divided electorate. Only the requirement of a qualified majority solves the problem, because it guarantees a minimum of stability by avoiding the consequences of frequent reversals of opinion.

This said, I do not believe that such qualified majority needs to be extreme. Two thirds or three quarters majorities are clearly anti-democratic. However, majorities of 10 to 15% are a reasonable compromise between the rule by majority and the need to protect the minorities.

Obviously, these rules should be constitutional.

The case of the UK is peculiar in this regard because it does not have a written constitution. So, can a sitting parliament, the House of Lords or a high court cancel (or make non-mandatory) last week’s referendum? I do not know enough about the British rules, but, given the risk of UK disintegration, they should at least require a new election to decide on the future relationship with Europe; even if that means asking the former EU partners for more patience.

Brexit and the danger of direct democracy

The Brexit vote provides a clear example of why direct democracy is a poor form of democracy. The reasons against direct voting are well know.Irreversible and long lasting decisions are taken in the spur of the moment without due regard for its consequences, based on lateral issues.

For instance, the Brexit debate was decided mostly on issues related to emigration which are a minor issue compared with the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

If the worst comes to the worst, the voters may find out that they voted to break up the United Kingdom, an issue that was never envisaged by most of them.

So, if referendum and other forms of direct democracy are acceptable to decide local or sectional issues they are not suitable to decide complex issues with many ramifications.

In particular, regime change decisions such as independence, constitutional changes or decisions on important international treaties should not be subject to popular vote based on a simple majority. Think for instance in voting for independence. If they are voted on a simple majority vote we would end up with a country deciding one day for independence a the following wishing to reverse its decision based on a change of mind by a few voters.

If such decisions require a popular consult then they should be based on a qualified majority that will not disappear easily overnight(e.g. a 2/3 or 10% majority).

So David Cameron’s assertion in his defeat speech that “There are times when it is right to ask the people themselves – and that is what we have done”, is not a convincing excuse for his fatal mistake of calling referendum on Scotland independence and European Union membership.

In conclusion, direct democracy has its place in a representative democracy but can endanger democracy itself if not limited in scope and quorum.

Means and ends in the pursuit of happiness

A state of happiness or a happy life is subjective and difficult to define in a precise manner. Yet, most people will agree that a fundamental purpose of life is the pursuit of our and other people’s happiness. But, what is happiness?

Definitions have been attempted since ancient times by philosophers and more recently by psychologist and neuroscientists. For instance, Aristotle (384–322 BC) ethics defined happiness as made up of pleasure (hedonia) and a life well lived (eudaimonia), a definition close to that still used today by most psychologists – pleasure, meaningful and engaged. While neuroscience has focused on the neuroanatomy of pleasure (changes in brain activity associated with changes in reported happiness), it has also began researching the study of prospective consciousness a feature unique to human beings (the sole capable of anticipating the outcome of current choices).

Whatever definition one chooses, it is clear that we need to distinguish current states of mind (which can be manipulated with drugs or group activities) from feelings of long-term achievement, ranging in degree from content to intense, which are felt by individuals with different innate predispositions.

For instance, consider the state of mind of two elders in the presence of a beautiful young person. One elder may find it a source of happiness by remembering fondly his own youth while the other may feel miserable by thinking that, because of his age, he will never be able to date such a beauty again. Likewise, consider the fact that many people consider as their happiest days those lived under conditions of serious displeasure (e.g. war or disaster) simply because they remember more vividly the friendship lived during that ordeal.

So, a personal state of feeling happy depends on one’s personality and his happy memories in relation to specific circumstances, namely: health, friends, family, money, sex, love, freedom, safety, etc. Are these factors to be considered as means to happiness or as constituents of happiness itself? Possibly both!

When our brain produces a given state of happiness, it is being impacted by various factors that are conducive to happiness or unhappiness feelings. However, in the current state of knowledge it is not yet possible to understand why it reads and weights differently such signals. Likewise, we do not know how different individuals weight their own happiness in relation to that of others in their community. Nevertheless, we can influence his ideas and personality through education.

This led me to suggest that we distinguish the means or ends that can be confused with happiness itself from those primary means required to achieve the ends usually associated with happiness. For instance, in my blog on the six pillars of human happiness I selected capitalism as fundamental to create wealth and liberalism to achieve freedom. That is, I considered money and freedom as intermediary ends which are part of happiness.

This is important, if one is to design integrated policies aimed at improving human happiness. For instance, to achieve the material conditions needed for happiness, we selected a trinity made up of market capitalism, representative democracy and constitutional liberalism. While, for spiritual conditions, we selected a trinity of productive work, scientific methods and enlightened virtues. These are the ones necessary to produce the ingredients of happiness, be they education, health, freedom, peace, religion or love.

Trump, Iglesias and Boris: The new faces of evil in western democracies

In contrast with the usual faces of evil from non-democratic countries (e.g. Putin, Maduro or Kim Jong-un), the new faces of evil all come from democratic countries. So, what is wrong with western democracy? Can we no longer rely on a free press and democracy to prevent the election of evil leaders?

Although extremists have a right to express peacefully and freely their views in a democratic society, it is expected that electors are sufficiently educated to not elect them. Yet, opinion polls on next week’s election in Spain and the UK referendum on EU membership suggest that such radical candidates are not far from winning. Likewise, in the US presidential election later in the year. So, is this because such candidates are wolves in sheep’s clothing misleading the electors?

Clearly not! They do not hide their hideous ideas, as I explained in previous posts. For instance, Donald Trump’s xenophobic ideas and hate for migrants are clearly dispelled in his so-called program to Make America Great Again. Likewise, the program of the Spanish party Podemos led by Pablo Iglésias, is a crude restatement of the Trotskyist version of communism coloured with populist claims of direct democracy, regional separatism and a phony rebellious youth. Finally, the proponents of Brexit, whether they are represented by Nigel Farage leader of UKIP or by Boris Johnson the former populist Mayor of London, play on the fear of immigration and loss of sovereignty, in a manner reminiscent of the infamous 1968 Enoch Powell’s speech on the Rivers of Blood. They downplay the costs of protectionism and economic disintegration, while bullying voters by claiming that they will be sissies if they do not vote out of the EU.

So, are these evil leaders gaining followers because the moderate media and politicians have given up on fighting their populist and nationalistic propaganda? Partly, this is true and it is often fostered by a media willing to resort to the dodgiest forms of reporting as long as it increases their audiences.

However, in my view, there are more important and genuine reasons for dissatisfaction with the current political systems. First, there is an inevitable peace lethargy among the young generations who do not remember the two world wars nor have they lived the age of utopias in the turn of the XIX century and the 1960s. Second, this is compounded by a generalized low regard for professional politicians who rotate in power and corruption fighting for special interest groups with an evident lack of public service spirit.

This real crisis of representative democracy and the new forms of media have been exploited expertly by the new evil leaders to disseminate their reactionary ideas. So, unless new leaders rise, as Churchill did in the 1930s against the appeasers and the nationalistic rhetoric of Hitler, and fight these new evil leaders, the Western World, as we know it, is in serious danger. This week’s electoral results in Spain and Britain will give us a first outlook of how real such danger is.