The Economist on the UK exiting Europe

The Economist's 2012 take on Britain leaving the EU

This week's cover article on the Economist was on a possible EU exit by the UK, "Making the break", December 08 - 14th, 2012. It is not an example of impressive journalism.

Apart from the pretty visuals, reminiscent of oil paintings of a bygone era, the article does not offer very many perceptive insights into Britain’s prospects of exiting the EU.  It does make for a laundry list of many factors which are relevant, e.g. the opinion of the media (and the Economist is part of that estate), the stances of various political parties, public opinion, the case of Switzerland and Norway, the significance of London’s financial industry, relations with NATO, access to EU-wide talent etc.. It ignores, however, some other points, e.g. examining the extent of Britain’s trade with the (rest of the) EU compared with non-EU partners, the non-financial benefits of EU-membership (such as freedoms, security, stability, cultural exchanges etc.), a look into precisely which areas in the UK receive EU aid (and whether the same areas and functions may count on the same extent of UK aid, once EU funds are blocked), a possible Greek exit from the Eurozone, access to the EU-wide job-market etc.. And there is little financial analyis, for an economics publication.

Prejudice against Poles

> "Britons have come to associate the EU with the uncontrolled immigration of Poles and other east Europeans, seemingly to every village."

This is fascinating. Note that the anonymous author (or authors) of this article does not make any attempt to reveal how he or she gained this insight into the opinions of Britons. Of course, the language suggests that it could be four Britons who have this opinion – easy enough to obtain that confirmation in most pubs at around half past nine in the evening. Of almost any opinion, that is.

The author therefore seeks to establish a prejudice by treating it as being universal, by making it passé. If everyone already uses the word Lonky to refer to a disabled Irishman, surely it is acceptable to do so?

The author's own opinion comes through, of course – when one examines the use of the definite article in the assertion: "...the uncontrolled immigration...", which suggests that the immigration of Poles etc. is definitely uncontrolled (out of control, implying deleterious), as compared to the mere association of that phenomenon with the EU, or as compared to the mere appearance of Poles in every single village (i.e. it may not be quite the case that the Pole stands in every village, but it appears to be, as compared to the certain uncontrolled immigration of said Poles and their neighbors).

The will of the people as accident

The article goes on to suggest that the British exit could be "almost by accident". Which is peculiar, given that the article quotes a poll which suggests that overwhelmingly more Britons would like to leave (49%), than would like to stay (32%). A decision to exit would, therefore, appear to reflect the will of the people. We are asked to ignore the fact that the article, as is typical for the Economist, does not really (“...latest YouGov poll...”) describe where the reader may find out more about the scope and rigor of the poll.

The abuse of statistics

The article claims that Britain would be GBP 8 billion better off each year. Let us examine this number. The UK's total national contribution in 2011 was EUR 11273.4 million. That includes the rebate of EUR 3595.9 million (from the UK correction, which, incidentally, is not mentioned anywhere in the Economist article). The operating budgetary balance for the UK in 2011 was EUR -5565.6 million. If we use the EU's year-end exchange rate of 1 EUR = 0.8353 GBP, the UK forked out around GBP 4.65 billion in 2011.

(2011 exchange rate taken from the consolidated annual accounts of the EU, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/eu_annual_accounts_2011_en.pdf)

All this from the EU's latest annual financial report, available freely online. None of this "Treasury figures suggest...." skullduggery – where may we find these figures, which year do these figures refer to, is that a figure published by the Treasury or is it derived from Treasury sources?

 (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/fin_report/fin_report_11_en.pdf)

Now, this EU figure of GBP 4.65 billion is off by the Economist's by a huge margin, of a few billion pounds – where does the difference come from? Alas, we are not privileged to know, for the Economist does not reveal its sources.

A clumsy look at EU-driven legislation

The article picks the Solvency II legislation, as an example of an advantage to be had by Britain no longer having to follow an EU directive, suggesting that its burden would become less onerous. Given that Solvency II is widely welcomed – and also shaped – by the insurance industry, this does not appear to be very relevant. Also, given the schedule of that Directive's enforcement, one assumes that a significant part of the compliance effort has already been made, in terms of the one-off changes to systems, organizations and processes.

Not saying much at all

The article concludes with the pedestrian, "And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again". The phrase "all but impossible" suggests that it is not quite a certainty.

Why would it be almost impossible to get in again? The article-writer does not deign to state his or her reasons. Now, there is a bunch of people paid to explore ways in which to expand the EU – surely they would be excited about gaining a country so closely linked to the history of Europe, representing a large market and having a fundamentally sound economy?

What about the Scotland exit?

Interestingly, the Economist article does not once mention the upcoming referendum on Scotland exiting the United Kingdom, and how that could influence Britain's exit. Indeed, the BBC, in an article published at the same time, asserts that “Scotland's membership of the EU has been a key to the independence debate”.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20675705)

What if the UK exits the EU, Scotland exits the UK, and the EU accepts Scotland as a full-fledged member?

Conclusion

Generally, the article leads one to conclude that the research the Economist quotes suggests that the UK would like to exit, but the Economist does not wish that to happen. The Economist, in this article, has chosen to label the lobby representing British farmers as being "noisy", which comes across as not particularly complementary. It would be interesting to see what impact a British exit from the EU would have on the Economist, and on the business interests of those who own the Economist. Indeed, a sense of fair play ought to have led it to make clear whether this organization has a vested financial interest.

Will we ask the questions?

An article published today, 09 April 2012, by Reuters [1] carried the headline “Ex-KGB man wins South Ossetia presidential election”.

It describes the winner of the Presidency, Leonid Tibilov, as a former KGB officer and as being pro-Russian. These two are the only attributes the article feels appropriate to assign to Mr. Tibilov. Apart from his gender and his age.

The KGB hardly has a happy reputation. In many minds, it may well be associated with the cellars of the Lubyanka in Moscow, where horrible crimes were committed. And, of course, with the Gulags, and the general repression of the Stalin era. Being an ex-employee of this organization may not instantly recommend one in many drawing-rooms on this planet.

However, the article does not state how long Mr. Tibilov worked for the KGB, nor in which period or periods, nor in which capacity. Surely, there is a difference if he was a senior official in a remote Soviet city, or a polisher of computer screens in a large office complex. Was he at the KGB as an eighteen-year old, for three weeks, or as a thirty-five-year-old for a few years? Was he convicted of crimes? Accused of any? Are there grounds to suspect that he was involved in deportations, or corruption, or targeted killings? Or can it be he was in the Press Office, translating Japanese press-articles into Russian for another department?

Incidentally, Mr. Putin of Russia also worked for the KGB. And Mr. Bush of the USA worked for the CIA, roughly the equivalent of the KGB in the USA. Do we imagine Reuters reporting Mr. Bush’s ascendancy to the Presidency as “Ex-CIA man wins US presidential election”?

The article goes on to say that Mr. Tibilov “headed South Ossetia’s security agency”, but does not name this agency. Perhaps because it is not as infamous as the KGB?

Ø “…the West, which accuses Russia of seeking to redraw borders by recognizing South Ossetia as independent.”

The article suggests that the West has a unified voice. This is a little presumptuous.

And even more presumptuous is the insinuation that the West has problems with the redrawing of borders.

The BBC, also today [2], chose to go with the headline “Ex-KGB chief Leonid Tibilov wins South Ossetia poll”.

This other article sheds some more light on Mr. Tibilov’s past offices:

Ø “The head of the South Ossetian KGB from 1992-98, Leonid Tibilov later became first deputy prime minister and then co-chairman of the Georgian-Ossetian peacekeeping commission.”

The BBC does not appear to approve of South Ossetia either, but chooses the “International community”, and not “the West” as its proxy of choice.

Ø “But almost all the international community except Russia considers South Ossetia as still part of Georgia.”

The article does not, however, describe the de-facto situation. Are Western energy companies investing in this country? Do other countries have an issue doing business with Russia on this score? Is there any influential international organization, or country in America, Asia, Africa or Western Europe that intends to deny South Ossetia its statehood?

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-georgia-southossetia-election-idUSBRE83805O20120409?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17655843

Journalists, inanity, taste and acquaintance with the language

A story run by the Telegraph earlier today boasted the headline “Senator accused of sexism over 'thank God' remark about female opponent”.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8813978/Senator-accused-of-sexism-over-thank-God-remark-about-female-opponent.html)

So the opponent was female. That’s the only attribute about her that our journalist thinks to be relevant, in the first instance. We learn, later, that she is a professor, teaches at Harvard, 62 years old and a Democrat. But, first and foremost, she has a vagina et cetera, is what the journalist wants us to know.

What about the senator? What gender does this protagonist have? The story, later, suggests that it is of the masculine sort. The headline does not, choosing only to bring out the gender of the other protagonist. This appears to be evidence of sexist thinking, on the part of the journalist. One assumes that the name Jon Swaine and the accompanying headshot is that of a real person, one often called a journalist, given that it is a newspaper, and that this person takes responsibility for what this person writes. Of course, the story might have been written by Clara, thus freeing Mr. Swaine of all guilt, but Clara is a female, and do we really need to acknowledge their contribution?

“Scott Brown, a..Republican…helped pay for university by appearing in Cosmopolitan. Asked how she funded her own education, Prof Warren.. said she had "borrowed money", adding: "I kept my clothes on." During a radio interview, Mr Brown, 52, responded: "Thank God."”

Now the headline claims that the senator has been “accused” of sexism. What does that mean? Accused by the State, or the local public prosecutor’s office? By pitchfork-carrying mobs of enlightened thousands? In dozens of letters written to local newspapers? The article itself quotes two individuals who make this suggestion. One is an paid employee (one assumes Executive Directors is not a pro bono job) of the political opponent, who is clearly partisan. The second source is the President of the National Organization for Women, an organization of feminists. Given that there are only two sources, one manifestly interested, one wonders whether the journalist may used the term “accused” in this generic fashion. In any public house, one can find eight people who are probably happy to do the same. Would that mean the Pope is “accused” of being lenient towards child molesters? By four times as many people as in this case? Are not fairness and veracity better served with “President of NOW accuses Senator of sexism; Senator repudiates”? But she actually said it was a “sexist misogynistic attack” (She is referring to the senator having said “Thank God”). A bit of stretch there, perhaps, but it is her opinion, and that may well be reported by the journalist. And if it wasn’t a stretch, then why was the misogyny accusation not mentioned in the headline? Analysis and perspective – are those part of a journalist’s brief? That would involve some contemplation. Perhaps more on Clara’s part. It’s her fault, really.

On eccentric chess-players and independent journalists

The Telegraph reported yesterday, 13 Jun 2011, on the visit of Mr. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to Tripoli, where he met Col. Gaddafi, the beleaguered leader of Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573080/Col-Gaddafi-refuses-to-step-down-playing-chess-instead.html).

The sub-headline referred to the visitor as being “eccentric”, as did the caption of the accompanying photograph. Indeed, the caption also suggested the reason why he is regarded as being eccentric: he has apparently claimed to have spoken to aliens. Interestingly, the photography is attributed to Reuters TV – did that source provide the writer of the Telegraph article with the caption as well, or did he happen upon “eccentric” on their own?

Now, the visitor labeled by this journalist as being eccentric is, according to the same article, the head of the World Chess Federation, a wealthy businessman and was the head of the Russian republic of Kalmykia for more than a decade.

The article does not state why the writer thinks the President of FIDE to be eccentric, but the juxtaposition in the caption appears to imply it is because he has claimed to have met aliens from space.

Now why would this make anyone eccentric? We live in a world where people believe in all sorts of invisible Gods, and whole systems of hells and heavens for which not the slightest proof exists. Indeed, some of the fundamental claims of some of the currently dominant religions are proven to be false. Yet there are those who believe in them. Would the journalist take it upon himself to call the Pope eccentric? The Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque? The millions of poor in India who generally tend to look towards a God-figure? The journalist is entitled to his opinion, but surely a little sense of taste would not be awry?

> “He (Gaddafi) is thought to spend his time constantly on the move, driving around Tripoli, and sleeping in hospitals and religious places that Nato would never dare bomb.”

By whom? By the journalist? In that case, why not “I think he spends his time…….”? Or by two Libyans who accosted him at the bar whilst they were getting some more ice for him? Why not state that source? The “is thought” device suggests common wisdom, an almost-truth, the truth.

The Independent followed suit the next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dictators-gambit-look-whos-joined-the-chess-set-2297106.html), referring to the first President of Kalmykia as “the eccentric chess supremo”.

Cause and Effect and Attention-Seeking

The BBC, on its website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13694734), ran the following tragic headline on the 08th of June, 2011, "Man stabbed to death for £12 on birthday in Fulham".

The article describes how a young man, Mr. Krzysztos Rusek, celebrating his birthday, his thirtieth in a public park in the company of his lover and friends, was attacked and killed.

It goes on to suggest that robbery was the motive and that a total of GBP 12 was taken.

The headline, on the other hand, implies that Mr. Rusek was murdered for the sake of GBP 12. Now, it is absurd that that the attackers knew in advance that they would be able to make away with this sum. Indeed, the article suggests that the attack was carried out with intent to rob (it describes the assailants as robbers and not, say, murderers) and not necessarily to kill.

The headline is thus an example of shabby journalism, in that truth is sacrificed in order to pander to sensationalism.

An example of far from outstanding journalism

The very respectable Guardian today published a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/06/libyan-regime-fails-fool-media) on the armed conflict (are we allowed to call it a War?) in Libya with the headline, "Gaddafi regime fails to fool media over injured child".

The sub-text read "Journalists taken to see 'bomb victim' in Libyan hospital find out child was hurt in road accident".

The story involves the Libyan government inviting journalists to observe an injured infant, probably in an effort to showcase how NATO bombs were killing children, hoping that the picture of an innocent girl in a hospital ward would appall most Westerners, putting pressure on NATO countries to stop bombing Libya. The narrative continues with the Libyan government being exposed whilst organizing a media circus around a lie – the girl was injured in a car crash.

Excellent investigative reporting, one might think, at first glance; the government won't fool us this time, lads.

However, a closer look and the story fails shockingly, on many levels.

Perhaps most importantly, even if the note on "hospital stationery" bore the truth, what of the larger issue of civilian casualties in a war? This girl was (probably) not struck by a bomb. What of the others who were? The article completely ignores this issue.

Perhaps Libyan babies aren't really that interesting

Note that the seven-month-old girl, Nasib, is completely ignored. We don't know where she is from, or where her parents are from, or whether her parents are really glad that she's survived, and if the entire family is praying for a swift and complete recovery. No one from the medical team is asked what her chances are. How did the road accident (if it indeed was a road accident) take place? Was there anyone else hurt? Were the parents in the same car?

As any reader of the UK press (the Guardian being a UK newspaper) might tell you, this sort of thing would be very conspicuous in its absence, were it to involve a seven-month-old accident victim in the UK.

Let's examine the headline again - it highlights a failed attempt at fooling the media. The media has triumphed. The media is all-powerful. Apart from being distastefully self-congratulatory, surely there are more urgent issues here that are pushed to the background?

Let us examine how they media found out they were being hoodwinked.

> But a member of the medical staff slipped a note written in English on hospital stationery to a reporter, which was seen by Reuters, that said: "This is a case of road traffic accident. This is the truth."

How did the media know that this person was a member of the medical staff? Did they check ID and employment records? Or was he wearing a whitish-sort of uniform? Or because he had his hand on a piece of "hospital stationery"? How strictly controlled is access to said hospital stationery? How do they know that the note is to be believed? Apart from the fact that he wrote "This is the truth", of course.

Assuming that the girl in this particular case wasn't really hurt by a bomb, but in a car accident, may we assume that NATO bombing is not to blame? What if the driver became nervous at the wheel because he heard a bomb explode in the distance and imagined that he might be hit soon? What if traffic was not properly controlled because the war situation had shifted resources away from traffic control? What if the girl will die because there aren't enough doctors to treat her, or medicines, because of the interrupted supply chains?

>” The government says that 700 civilians have died in bombing raids, but have offered little evidence to support the claim.”

Well, what evidence did they offer? Or is this a figure of speech, and absolutely no evidence was forthcoming? That's good, we want our journalists to probe, to ask for proof. What would have sufficed? 700 dead bodies? But they could have drowned whilst on a pleasure cruise to Italy or something, so 700 dead bodies with autopsy reports, perhaps? But the government might be faking those, so 700 autopsy reports from independent doctors. That ought to do the job. They have a war going on over there, and seven-month-old girls hooked up to (some sort of unidentifiable) medical equipment, so it might take a little bit of time. The key question in this context is: do standards of truth in the war-zone apply universally? Would we believe the statistics of the government of Australia? Better still, may we believe them, in a similar case? And whilst we are trying to figure out the truth, ought military action to be put on hold?

A member of the government is quoted:

> "We want to be as credible as much as possible."

Our journalist ignores this question-begging statement.