We’re coming to a reckoning
It is curious that, in Gary Younge’s piece (We can’t rewind the political clock, 14 September) and other coverage on a proposed UK second referendum, no mention is made of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In submitting the letter of intent to leave the EU as of 29 March 2019, the UK has already left. The only things outstanding are the manner of the departure and the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
Article 50 provides no mechanism for the UK to change its mind. On delivering a notice to quit, only two options are allowed: to leave with an agreement or after two years, whichever comes first. The only way back into the EU is by re-applying. So, assuming that a second referendum were held and it resulted in a majority vote to remain, it would have no impact on what has happened. Only a unanimous decision of the 27 EU members to withdraw the notice would alter that reality.
Crashing out is the worst possible option for the UK, but opting for another referendum, especially if it includes the unrealisable option of staying in, will just increase the likelihood of ending up with the worst choice.
Keith Stotyn
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
• As Gary Younge points out, Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a deeper malaise that won’t go away even if they do. As we hurtle into the unknown we can make wiser decisions if we consider the context of these events. We are experiencing the slow collision between capitalism and global limits to growth. The growth of wealth has been phenomenal but has been achieved at the expense of environmental debts.
For example, Canada’s richest province, Alberta, if it were to clean up all the abandoned oil wells, not to mention the tar sands, would soon be bankrupt. In British Columbia we are witnessing our natural capital, the forests, going up in smoke while learning how bitumen spills kill salmon.
The anxiety, which Younge references but does not explain, is a growing awareness that we are coming to an inevitable reckoning.
Edward Butterworth
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
A cure for neoliberalism
Your editorial is right: the free market’s failure in 2008 does require us to engage in a “fundamental review of the role of government” around the world – to “reset the boundaries between the state and the market and discuss how a civilised society should treat its people” (New thinking needed, 21 September). Each country needs to recognise the failure of the neoliberal free market economy on its own doorstep and to get behind a global process to remedy the problem.
In Australia we are reeling from the news of the corruption in our financial services unearthed by a recent royal commission. That recognition of failure is commendable as far as it goes. But in the light of the commission’s work, we must ask ourselves whether this failure of values is inherent in our entire system and not just its financial sector. If it is, then what new system do we need to come up with to replace it?
Terry Hewton
Adelaide, South Australia
What about the majority?
Several readers in my household were struck by the strange choice of headline to Uki Goñi’s article (Argentina’s Catholics take a stand, 14 September), which in fact described a stand taken by a “tiny” minority of the country’s Catholics against the official position of their church and the majority position of the practicing Argentinian laity. Applying this approach to headline generation could yield interesting results: Donetsk separatism? “Ukrainians take a stand.” Brexit leave vote? “Europeans take a stand.” This letter? “Guardian readers take a stand.”
Progressives are of course entitled to a disproportionate focus on and sympathy for proponents of abortion access. But that needn’t exclude a charitable reading of the opposition or a realistic presentation of the state of the social debate.
Josiah Henderson
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Your article states that “anachronistic” Argentina only dropped the requirement that its president be a Catholic in 1994. It’s 2018, and the UK still requires its head of state to be head of the local church.
Muiris de Bhulbh
Leixlip, Ireland
Briefly
• William Davies offers expert advice at the end of Red Alert (14 September) – that to stem the tide of rising populism, accelerated by technology’s quickness of response, we should not “denigrate the influence of feelings in politics today”, but slow down and try instead to “get better at listening to and learning from them” – that we should take time to understand each other. As a subscriber, I am helped in this regard by the Guardian Weekly to “traverse” the current reality Davies describes “with unusual judgment and care”.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
• In your Dispatches item (Med diet and longevity, 14 September) you write “Researchers say a Mediterranean diet still offers benefits in older age and could reduce the risk of death ...” Does that mean I am risking eternal life on earth by observing a Mediterranean diet? I’d rather stick to a diet of wine and chocolate.
Birgit Richter
Heidelberg, Germany
Send letters to weekly.letters@theguardian.com. Please include a full postal address and a reference to the article. We may edit letters. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
