Latest news with #Brexit
New Statesman
an hour ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Thought experiment 14: The box that can change the past
Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images In front of you are two boxes. In the first, Box A, there is £1,000. The box is transparent. You can see the money. The second box, Box B, is opaque and may or may not contain £1,000,000. You have a choice. You can either take Box B (and Box B only), or you can take both boxes. Whatever money is in the boxes is yours. But here's the catch: you have been told that there is a very good predictor, let's call her Meg, who is almost always right. And if Meg predicted that you'd take both boxes, she'll have left Box B empty. If she predicted you'd only take Box B, she'll have stuffed it with that million quid. So, what would you do? Take one box or two? I've long been a two-boxer. But the puzzle divides people. Back in 2016, Brexit referendum year, I debated it in the pages of the Guardian with a one-boxer, the Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Since then, he's been appointed free speech tsar for the Office for Students (the higher education regulator), and has declared that university education should be 'the intellectual equivalent of stepping into a boxing ring'. But from boxing rings back to boxes. The Guardian ran a poll and 31,854 readers voted. I moaned at the time that, as with Brexit, a slight majority (in this case, 53.5 per cent) had got it badly wrong – ie they were one-boxers and sided with Arif. I'd failed to convince readers with the following argument: by the time you're faced with the choice, Meg has already made her prediction. You cannot influence a decision made in the past by making a decision in the present. Meg has either put £1m into Box B or she has not. So you have nothing to lose by taking both boxes. Think of it this way. Imagine that Box B has transparent glass on the far side – the side you can't see. Suppose a friend on this far side, looking into Box B, was permitted to communicate with you. What would their advice be? Surely to take both boxes. If the £1m is there, and you choose both boxes, it won't disappear in a puff of smoke. It is irrational to take only Box B, because, in comparison, taking both boxes will always enrich you by an extra £1,000. On the other hand, if Meg foresees that you'll take both boxes, it appears you'll miss out on a financial bonanza. If the choice is between being rational and being rich, Arif wrote, 'I'll take the money every time.' Newcomb's paradox, just described, is named after William Newcomb, an American theoretical physicist who devised the problem in 1960. But it only gathered prominence when the Harvard professor Robert Nozick resurrected it in an article in 1969. Nozick had heard about it at a party – 'the most consequential party I have attended'. Over the years, he posed the problem to many people. 'To almost everyone it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost equally on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe We don't face Newcomb's paradoxes in real life. But it has a similar structure to a more familiar problem in theology. The 16th-century pastor John Calvin thought that God has predetermined who would and who would not ascend to heaven. There's nothing any of us can do about this. But Calvin also maintained that the best predictor of whether you're to be saved is that you live an honourable, virtuous life. So, how to conduct yourself? On the one hand, if you don't live your life in a righteous manner, it is almost certain you won't be saved. On the other hand, since either you're saved or you're not, there isn't much incentive to behave. In the year Nozick was writing about Newcomb's paradox, the Northern Ireland footballer George Best trialled behavioural restraint. 'In 1969 I gave up women and alcohol', he said. 'It was the worst 20 minutes of my life.' For two-boxer Calvinists, George Best's approach to life might make sense. In fact, through conversations with the Australian philosopher Huw Price, I've had a rethink. My key assumption was that cause has to precede effect. You can cause things to happen in the future, but not the past. However (and mind-bending though this idea is), it turns out that our best understanding of quantum mechanics requires, or is at least compatible with, backwards causation, with things in the past being altered by things in the present or future. If that's right, the paradox dissolves. 'Everyone agrees that if we can affect what the predictor did, we should one-box,' says Price. As for the charge that causation can only work forwards: 'To an old pragmatist like me, causes are just means to ends. If you want B, and doing A gets you B, then A counts as a cause of B. I want the predictor to put the £1m in the opaque box, and one-boxing gets me that. So it counts as a cause!' I could never have predicted it, but I've changed my mind about Newcomb's Box. Haven't changed my mind about Brexit, though. [See also: Thought experiment 13: The comet that destroys the Earth after our death] Related
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Politics
- Belfast Telegraph
Border issues ‘should have been foreseen' as former NI Secretary Julian Smith hits out at Cameron's cavalier' approach to Brexit
And Mr Smith, who lasted just over six months in the NI role before being sacked by Boris Johnson, said he was 'frustrated but not surprise' at being removed from the job despite his role in securing a return of Stormont in 2020. Having been appointed as Secretary of State by Boris Johnson in 2019 Mr Smith, who remains MP for Skipton and Ripon in Yorkshire though called himself 100% Scottish, found himself in the midst of what he called 'an unforgivable decision' by former Prime Minister David Cameron to call the referendum on leaving the European Union. 'I joined the Conservative Party because of David Cameron, because he was dynamic, but it was unforgivable that this fundamental question was put to the British people when you have a whole range of issues, not least the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland,' he told the BBC's Red Lines podcast. Now on the back benches, one of the few supporters of Theresa May's government to have survived, he's highly critical of Lord Cameron's approach, calling the former Prime Minister 'extremely cavalier' in his approach to Brexit. 'It (the referendum) was put to the British people as if it was some sort of Eton game,' he said, referencing the fact that Mr Cameron was one of several at the heart of the UK government who had been educated at the famous private school. After losing the referendum vote, David Cameron resigned and left piecing it together to others, among them Mr Smith who was a key figure in Teresa May's doomed government, serving as chief whip under her leadership from 2016-19. 'There should have been a proposition which outlined how both answers, yes and no, would be addressed,' he said. 'Issues such as how to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should have been foreseen. Instead the UK was led into years of contemplating an answer to that question. 'It was a pretty disastrous period. It has led to many of the challenges today where concerns over immigration are unaddressed and a polarisation of politics. That may have come anyway, but it was really accelerated by that period from 2017 onwards.' Theresa May resigned in 2019 due to an inability to pass Brexit legislation - three times the votes went against her government in the Commons, During that time he had built up a relationship with the DUP, who had secured their 'confidence and supply' arrangement to prop up government. 'The DUP relationship was very helpful in one of the big factors - keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of power,' he said. 'They were positive to work with, but it was obviously a very difficult time when you had a very small party that was critical to the stability at Westminster and so influential. On a personal basis I found them straightforward to deal with.' When Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister Smith was appointed to his first Cabinet as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and was instrumental in breaking three years of political inactivity as Stormont resumed in January 2020. 'I wasn't sure I would get a job,' he said, having been a key figure in supporting Teresa May. 'I was delighted to get the role,' he continued, admitting days in Northern Ireland was the first time he had dealt with Sinn Fein politicians. 'They don't take their seats at Westminster,' he said. 'Probably they could have had the votes to influence things (over Brexit) 'But I found Sinn Fein to be a very driven and organised party. I find what happened in the past abhorrent and I disagree with their goals, but I found their politicians straightforward to deal with and developed good working relationships with them.' That led to Stormont returning in January 2020. A month later, Julian Smith was out of the job. 'It was quite frustrating,' he said. 'The restoration of Stormont was one of the first successes of the Boris Johnson government. I had pushed back in cabinet about the idea of a 'no deal' Brexit. Looking back, if I had been Boris, I'd have been irritated by that too. 'I felt I could have assisted him more as Prime Minister. But no, it wasn't unexpected he decided to get rid of me as I'd served Teresa May.' Asked about the potential for a border poll, Smith said he did not think the conditions were 'right'. 'Look at all the other things that need to be done,' he said. 'Constitutional discussion is basically an excuse for not dealing with these priority issues. Don't let politicians in Northern Ireland off the hook on dealing with social mobility, dealing with the health service, revenue raising 'I cannot in any world see a border poll with interest from Ireland, acceptance from the UK. We're better focusing on making people's lives better.'
Daily Record
4 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Record
Ian Murray accused of 'hypocrisy' after UK Government keeps 'damaging' post-Brexit law
EXCLUSIVE: Labour's Scottish Secretary said in 2020 that the Internal Market Act was "damaging" and undermined devolution. Ian Murray has been accused of "hypocrisy" after the UK Government said it was keeping a post-Brexit law which he had previously said should be removed. Labour's Scottish Secretary said in 2020 that the Internal Market Act was "bad and damaging" and undermined devolution. He also voted against it while in opposition. The law was introduced to create a single market across the UK after Brexit. But it has since allowed UK ministers to override the Scottish Parliament. This happened with the Deposit Return Scheme, where the Tory Government refused to exclude it from the act. SNP MP Stephen Gethins has written to Murray asking him to "repeal and replace" the law. The Arbroath and Broughty Ferry MP said: "The Internal Market Act has stripped powers from the Scottish Parliament and has undone the work of its principal architect, Donald Dewar. "I am old enough to remember when Ian Murray stood against Brexit and voted down the Act which he described as damaging and that undermined the devolution settlement. "It is complete hypocrisy that now he has his feet under the cabinet table he now backs this legislation and endorses Brexit - picking apart the powers of Scotland's parliament. "This is yet another promise broken by the Labour Party and it is another blow to the devolution settlement - any politician from Scotland worth their salt must fight tooth and nail to see the Internal Market Act repealed." Holyrood twice voted against the Internal Market Act. Labour MSPs backed the most recent motion to scrap it in 2023. The UK Government published its review of the act on Tuesday. UK trade minister Douglas Alexander promised "improvements" to the law but made clear ministers have not considered scrapping it. He said "the review has not considered repeal of the Act or any of its provisions" because the UK Government has 'been explicit about the need for businesses to have certainty'. The UK Government is promising changes to the law, including the introduction of exclusions to the legislation. As well as considering economic impacts, issues of environmental protection and public health will also be looked at for exclusions – with the UK Government saying this ensures a 'balance of factors is considered'.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
London to Germany trains part of new Starmer-Merz pledge
Eurostar-style trains between Britain and Germany could start under plans being drawn up by Sir Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz ahead of a summit in London. The two leaders will pledge to demolish barriers stopping direct rail travel from London to Frankfurt in the hope of extending a service to Berlin. The Prime Minister is expected to welcome the German Chancellor for his first official visit to the UK since his election victory in February. In the latest step in the Government's post-Brexit reset with Europe, the two leaders will sign a 'friendship treaty' and agree an action plan to deepen relations. Among the initiatives is a commitment to set up a working group to facilitate direct rail links between St Pancras in London and German stations, multiple sources told the Telegraph. The first destinations are likely to be to financial hub Frankfurt and Cologne, which is famous for its carnival. There are also hopes for a direct train from London to Berlin in the same way there already is to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. The Government believes the plans have benefits beyond the symbolism of enduring ties after Brexit, including for the economy, tourism and providing a greener alternative to flights. Eurostar, which is obtaining 50 new trains at a cost of £2 billion, and Deutsche Bahn are in negotiations over the new routes, which could open in 2030. Establishing new direct routes are fiendishly difficult and often require the support of governments to overcome the legal, practical and infrastructure barriers preventing them. The working group of British and German officials will discuss how to smooth over such challenges and facilitate the new routes. The first services to Frankfurt are expected to take five hours, which is seen as competitive with commercial flights, and are likely to run through Paris. This helps solve the issue of border and passport checks on entering the EU's Schengen Area, which are carried out at St Pancras. There will still need to be negotiations with French authorities over the new routes. Trains to Cologne would probably go through Brussels, which would involve discussions with Belgium. There are other barriers beyond immigration. There are different safety regulations in the Channel Tunnel and Germany, with different rules on train length and power requirements. Continental standards on trains and platforms vary from the UK. Germany and the UK use different voltages to electrify their rails. Interoperability on signalling is also limited. Very few train models are certified to operate in the UK, France, Germany and Belgium, and custom-built trains are expensive. London and Berlin are expected to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to formalise their cooperation to lay the groundwork for trade and tourism boosting commercial services. The two countries will also sign a defence cooperation treaty and announce a deal making school exchanges easier after an 80 per cent drop in German school trips to the UK since Brexit. Bringing Germany and UK closer Deutsche Bahn abandoned plans for a London-Frankfurt service in 2010 because of difficulties over cost, border controls and negotiations with tunnel operators. A Deutsche Bahn spokesman said: 'A direct connection from Germany to London is challenging from a technical, operational, and legal perspective. Several key requirements must be met for it to go into operation.' He added, 'We are currently in talks with Eurostar about a direct connection from Germany to London. Together, we want to bring Germany and Great Britain even closer together by rail. We are convinced of the great potential of a direct connection.' Eurostar is exploring new routes as it braces for competition from other rail companies when its 30 year monopoly on the Channel Tunnel comes to an end. The UK rail regulator invited potential rivals to set out their plans last month. Eurostar, which extended its original service to the Netherlands, is also looking to set up direct routes to the Swiss city of Geneval. In May, the Government agreed a similar MoU with the Swiss government. 'Our new fleet will make new destinations for customers a reality – notably direct trains between London and Germany, and between London and Switzerland for the first time. A new golden age of international sustainable travel is here,' said Eurostar chief executive Gwendoline Cazenave last month after announcing the expansion of her fleet to 67 trains.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Thank you, Donald Trump, for a truly dreadful trade deal
In the interests of transparency, I publish in full below a letter from Sir Keir Starmer to Donald Trump which was mistakenly shared with me on WhatsApp. 'Dear Donald, I write to thank you once again for the generosity you have shown to the UK in imposing an additional tariff of 10pc on British exports to the United States. As a nation, we are hugely grateful for the leniency you have shown us, and I look forward to expressing my thanks in person when you do us the honour of a state visit this September. You can expect the full works – trumpets, carriages, banquets and much, much more. A kowtow of truly epic proportions in full and proper recognition of the damage you are about to inflict on the UK economy is promised. I have to say that our consummate schmoozer, Peter Mandelson – you know, the one whose accent you like so much – has done us proud in toadying up to you. His approach would have done credit to Uriah Heep, a character from our very own Charles Dickens in case you haven't heard of him. But it's more than just flattery. We genuinely think of you as the most consequential president since George Washington, and greatly appreciate the many 'nuances' with which you so cleverly imbue your Truth Social posts. I struggle with them, myself, but then I have Peter to tell me what you are really saying. He's been quite a hit on the Washington scene, I hear. There is no occasion he will not attend, and no audience his fawning cannot charm. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony. It's admittedly required quite an effort to pass off a trade deal that makes it harder and more expensive to export to the US as a triumph. But this was the first unarguable 'Brexit dividend' the UK has been able to achieve since leaving the European Union, and it is me and Peter – both arch-Remainers – who have been able to deliver it. I'm not allowed to say this, because of my reset in relations with the EU, so please keep it confidential. But I'd be much obliged if you didn't hold back on the tariffs you are about to impose on the EU. As you might have read, I'm in all kinds of trouble on the domestic front – which makes my relationship with you all the more important. It is vital that I am seen to get less of a bad deal than the EU. The markets seem to think that despite your threats, the EU will end up with something not so far removed from our own miserable arrangements – minus the cars and aerospace concessions of course, for which again many thanks. You don't need me to tell you that this would not look good from my perspective. And by the way, you should not trust Maroš Šefčovič, the EU trade commissioner. He's a one time 'commie', you know, who studied in Soviet Russia 'to deepen his knowledge of Marxist Leninism'. Not even Angela Rayner was ever that Left-wing. Šefčovič seems to think he's about to sweet talk your people into an acceptable trade deal. Please say this is not true. Also don't trust Italy's Giorgia Meloni. Take it from me, she's much more interested in Elon than you. But as I say, I very much welcome your determination to wreak havoc on world trade, and feel 100pc confident that there is method in the seeming madness, even though I'm struggling to see it. Affectionately yours, Sir Keir.' OK, so that's enough gratuitous imagining from me, though I fancy it may not be a million miles from the truth. In any case, it is indeed surprising that the markets are apparently so relaxed about the latest turn of events. The 30pc tariff on the EU Mr Trump announced over the weekend is bigger than the one he proposed on his so-called 'liberation day' in April. Warnings from the American business and financial establishment that his tariffs would prompt a recession caused Mr Trump to 'pause' their implementation to allow for talks. Markets assume that the latest assault will similarly end in compromise. A word of caution – this may be no more than wishful thinking. As it is, there is little justification for the actions the Trump administration is taking against Europe, or in seemingly lesser form against the UK, for that matter. As of 2023, the EU's average trade-weighted tariff was admittedly a little bit higher than the US, according to World Trade Organisation data – 5.1pc against 3.4pc. It was also quite a lot higher for agricultural products – 12.2pc against 4.8pc. The numbers for the UK were pretty much the same as for the EU and haven't diverged much since. It may also be true that EU non-tariff barriers to trade are higher – it depends on what sectors we are talking about. Yet the trade imbalances Trump complains of have, in truth, got very little to do with tariffs and other barriers to trade. Rather they are the result of structural differences in the two economies, and in particular the propensity of the US to consume a lot but save and invest too little. In the EU it is the other way around – it consumes too little and invests too much. The same is true of China. For the UK, which is structurally quite similar to the US in its tendency to consume beyond its means, and where trade in goods with the US is roughly in balance, there is even less of a case for applying punitive tariffs. Sadly, rational thinking doesn't come into it. We can complain all we like, but Trump stood for office on a protectionist platform, so we should not be surprised that he is now being as good as his word and imposing it. Rather, we should seek to lessen the impact as much as possible and hope that Trump or his successors eventually see the light. Tempting though it is to respond in kind, it's not going to do any good. On the contrary, it threatens only to make a bad situation even worse. It is positively insulting that Trump should treat some of his closest and most loyal allies like this. But it is what it is. And as long as it is possible to salvage at least something from the wreckage, this is the path we must tread. Not to trade at all with the US, which is where Europe would end up if it followed a tit-for-tat, beggar thy neighbour approach, would be deeply damaging for the Western alliance.
