This report explores options for trade post-Brexit. The authors, Victor Anderson and Rupert Read from the Green House Think Tank, conclude that a radical shift in economic policy, which reduces dependency on exports and makes the UK more self-sufficient, is the only chance there is of making Brexit successful. All other models of trade – such as falling back on WTO rules or new trade deals outside the single market – would lead to a worsening economy and threaten environmental standards and workers’ rights, says the report.
Commenting on the report which she commissioned, Molly Scott Cato said:
“I believe above all else the vote to leave the EU was an expression of a loss of control over our lives and a rejection of politicians who have failed to challenge corporate power or the negative consequences of globalisation.
“This report is about reinterpreting Brexit in the light of our longstanding Green critique of globalisation. Greens have always argued for greater self-reliance and stronger local economies. It now looks like such a path will be the best future on offer for the UK outside the EU.
“The recommendations offer some exciting ideas on how we can begin to think our way out of the destructive globalisation of recent years. They offer the prospect of building stronger communities, creating new jobs through re-skilling or learning new skills and reducing our environmental impact. It is a vision of hope in a world dominated by corporate globalisation.”
The precautionary principle remains the greatest safeguard against reckless decision making that ignores risks to humanity, but we will need to fight for it in a post-Brexit world.
By Rupert Read and Samuel Webb, previously published in the ENDS report
These are hard times for those wanting to believe in Aristotle’s definition of humankind as the “rational animal”. The western world appears to be lurching backward into unveiled greed and denial in regards to the reality of our global ecology.
A more-than-symbolic example is US president Donald Trump’s brash move to redact climate research from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website. This is an audacious attempt to censor and alter the facts of climate change to suit his administration, which is chock-full of fossil fuel interests.
Unfortunately Trump’s perspective on environmental policies risks resonating in the UK. With climate deniers also present at the highest levels of government, and that government’s dismal record on all matters green, Britain’s position on combatting climate change is tenuous at best. Uncertainties over which policies are to be culled with the coming ‘Great Repeal Bill’ should raise cause for concern.
Times like these need entrenched defences for ecosystems. A key such defence is the ‘precautionary principle’. This offers a decisive, sceptic-proof argument in favour of climate and genetic protection.
The principle is reasonably well entrenched in the EU. But, so far as Britain is concerned, for how much longer will we be subject to the defence? Caroline Lucas recently asked a parliamentary question on what effect Brexit will have on the principle. The answer was that it will be absorbed into UK law as part of the Great Repeal Bill process. But this does little to reassure because it could be struck out by a simple parliamentary majority at any time afterwards.
The principle is currently subject to systematic propagandistic assault at the hands of a reckless, growth-at-any-cost ‘innovation principle’. Apologists for short-termist commercial interests do not want any significant regulation interfering with the money they want to make from biotech and the like. The case of GMOs demonstrates why adopting the innovation principle would be utterly reckless.
The alleged evidence that GM crops are safe is statistically insignificant when considered against the backdrop of the kind of timescale against which evidence should properly be judged: an ecological and evolutionary timescale – thousands of years.
Across such a long period, our exposure to as yet unseen, disastrous events becomes a very serious consideration. Where severe tail risks accompany new technologies, precaution thus enjoins us not to take those risks; risks of ruin should be considered far weightier than benefits, because the potential benefits of a technology simply cannot outweigh the potential for a truly disastrous outcome, even if the chances of that outcome are relatively small.
Unlike the innovation principle, which misses the point that growth-for-its-own- sake is surely an irrational aim in a ‘developed’ society such as ours, the precautionary principle remains the greatest safeguard against reckless decision making.
But there is a real danger that unless people stand up for the principle, we will lose it if we leave the EU; pro-GM interests are already actively gunning for it. And our view is that ending precaution and ushering in recklessness with regard to commercial ‘innovation’ could lead to a much bigger exit – humanity exiting the gene pool.
Without the principle to proactively protect us against climate catastrophe or bio- and eco-disasters, that final exit becomes a real prospect. To echo Churchill, who addressed a parallel question in the wilderness years: this is not “alarmism” it is rather a much-needed raising of the alarm.
Rupert Read (pictured) is reader in philosophy at the University of East Anglia and chair of thinktank Green House. Samuel Webb is an undergraduate student and research assistant on UEA’s precautionary principle project
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) February 27, 2017
— Politics @ UEA (@Politics_UEA) February 27, 2017
‘Leave Our Kids Alone’ welcomes the news that children will no longer be targeted by junk food ads on certain internet media. This ban is one small step in the right direction. But it is only a small step. Why should young children continue to be targeted by junk-food pushers in other media ? And, more important, why should commercial interests be allowed constantly to manipulate children of primary school age and younger through advertising toys, clothes, and child-orientated brands of all sorts to them?
Rupert Read and Helena Norberg-Hodge analyse how to respond to the Trump-Brexit wave in The Ecologist
“Both Trump and Brexit can be explained by the failure of mainstream political elites to address the pain inflicted on ordinary citizens in the neoliberal era, write Helena Norberg-Hodge & Rupert Read. In the US and the UK, working class voters rightly rejected the corporate globalisation that has created so much poverty and insecurity. But the real solutions lie not in hatred, but relocalisation.”
“From Donald Trump’s triumphant slogan to the Brexiteers’ ‘take back control’, political discourse is saturated with powerful images or ‘frames’. Should the left fight fire with fire – or will that make things even more toxic?”
Excellent piece in the Guardian…and I’m quoted as founder of the “Green Words Workshop”