In a blog post for the London School of Economics on the subject, Papazoglou explains how the 20th-century philosopher Isaiah Berlin set out two forms of liberty: negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom is the freedom from external constraints, while positive freedom is the freedom to do things according to your will. And in arguing the UK should leave the EU, campaigners disproportionately emphasized negative freedoms.
“As a member of the EU, I may give up the right to control my borders in terms of EU citizens,” says Papazoglou. “But then my citizens also gain the freedom to travel and work in a lot of countries.” [...]
Papazaglou also argues that the notion of the EU imposing undemocratic edicts on the UK is false. In fact, he says, the EU is a highly democratic institution, and arguably embodies a more nuanced version of democracy than the EU referendum itself—in which slim majority vote on a referendum has the power to effect the course of a country for the foreseeable future. [...]
Though a philosophical discussion of freedom might seem too abstract for day-to-day politics, Papazoglou points out that much of the debate around whether the UK should remain in the EU was focused on abstract ideas such as democracy, sovereignty, and freedom, not just practical considerations. And so, if the UK was to make a decision about its standing in the world based on a concept of freedom, there should at least have been a nuanced discussion of what freedom is.
No comments:
Post a Comment