Academy of Ideas

After the Conservative Party’s victory in the general election, it now looks likely that David Cameron will follow through on his promise to hold an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union by the end of 2017. Although Cameron himself would prefer the UK to remain a member, there is now a serious possibility of ‘Brexit’, particularly given the rise of UKIP and a general disillusionment with the EU among many voters across the political spectrum. Euroscepticism has re-emerged on the left, too, with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Jones calling for the UK to leave the EU. Business leaders have frequently warned of economic catastrophe if the UK leaves the EU. One much-quoted estimate is that between three and four million jobs depend on trade with the EU, though the claim that these jobs would all be in jeopardy if the UK left is controversial. The UK would likely continue to have free trade with the remaining members of the EU. But the economic issues run much wider than trade. Brexit could have significant implications for inward investment, the role of the City of London as a global financial centre, UK influence on the rules and regulations of a block that would remain a major trading partner, as well as agricultural support, free movement of workers, and so on. But perhaps it would be wrong to see the question of EU membership in narrowly economic terms. There is much concern that the EU now determines large areas of UK law, while lacking the accountability to voters that national parliaments have. The travails of the Eurozone have dampened enthusiasm in many quarters for the long-term project of ‘ever-closer union’. Some see the possibility of Brexit not as a rejection of Europe but as an opportunity to rethink our relationship with other EU member states. Is the EU reformable, or are its current ways of working too entrenched? Would an independent UK be able to survive and thrive outside the EU? Is Europe as we know it already doomed, or has it proven itself capable of weathering the crisis? Recorded at the Battle of Ideas 2015 Speakers Kishwer Falkner Baroness Falkner of Margravine; chair, House of Lords EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee; member, EU Select Committee Thomas Kielinger UK correspondent, Die Welt Matthew Kirk group external affairs director, Vodafone Philippe Legrain visiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right Phil Mullan economist; director, Epping Consulting business advice; author, The Imaginary Time Bomb Chair Peter Lloyd consultant, financial markets research; campaigner, Manifesto Club; writer, Free Society

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick discusses public health's war on our bad habits. In the run up to Christmas, the season of excess and indulgence, Rob Lyons and David Bowden are joined by writer and retired GP Michael Fitzpatrick to discuss the ever increasing curbs on our ability to eat, drink, smoke and be merry.

Listen to the team discuss the Paris attacks, bombing Syria and the climate change talks In this week’s Podcast of Ideas Rob Lyons, Claire Fox and David Bowden discuss the aftermath of the Paris attacks, intervention in Syria, Jeremy Corbyn’s embattled position as Labour leader and this week’s UN climate change conference .

When Jeremy Corbyn went from being the token lefty candidate for Labour leader to the favourite to lead the party this summer, it became clear that the old assumptions no longer apply. But while the ‘Corbyn Wave’ appeared to be something new, there was an unmistakable paradox in the fact that the man of the moment had been hiding in plain sight at Westminster since 1983. So is he a blast from the past or a harbinger of things to come? Some suggest his rise represents a momentous shift to the left. With its new £3 registered supporter option, Labour’s ‘membership’ swell to 610,753, with many of the new influx aged under 30. This seemed to echo the rise of the SNP in Scotland as another example of the left-wing populism flaring up across Europe in the wake of SYRIZA in Greece and Podemos in Spain. At the same time, though, more long-established outsider parties like Britain’s UKIP and France’s Front National have enjoyed considerable electoral success, topping the European Parliament polls. With the unlikely emergence of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as plausible US presidential candidate, ‘politics as we know it’ seems to be over, but it does not seem to be as simple as a move to the left. The dramatic ascent of the Sweden Democrats, a party that describes itself as socially conservative with a nationalist foundation, means that when its leader Jimmie Åkesson predicts that his party will one day be strong enough to run the country, serious commentators acknowledge this is possible. It is as yet unclear whether these new political parties command a stable support for specific policies. There seems a more unstable ebb and flow of new parties in the spotlight and showing disenchantment with mainstream politics by voting for the outsider can appear more the sign of anti-politics rather than newly radicalised times. Is it Corbyn’s old-fashioned state socialism programme attracting solid support, or is his appeal that he is Not Blair Or The Other Three candidates? And while UKIP gained four million votes in the general election, their much vaunted rise is now side-lined as yesterday’s flash in the pan story, with UKIP voters being amongst those enthusiastically supporting Corbyn. Why have populist parties become so popular? Does this mark the beginning of the end for many established parties, or is it merely a period of change, more about volatile protest votes than a new historic era? Should we really take seriously some of these movements when they may disappear as quickly as they emerged? If the Corbyn Effect is part of this wider trend, will it last or will it crumble like Clegg-mania amid broken promises and unrealistic ideas? Or are we in fact watching the emergence of exciting new political movements, a reason to be hopeful? Speakers David Aaronovitch columnist, The Times; author, Voodoo Histories; chair, Index on Censorship Alex Deane managing director, strategic communications, FTI Consulting; Sky News regular; BBC Dateline London panellist Andrew Gimson author and political journalist; contributing editor, ConservativeHome Miranda Green journalist; founding editor, The Day; regular contributor to BBC political shows; former Lib Dem spin doctor Chair Bruno Waterfield Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No

Listen to the special Battle of Ideas satellite put on in Stockholm in the wake of the Paris attacks At last weekend’s series of Battle of Idea Satellite debates in Stockholm an impromptu session was held in response to last Fridays terror attacks in Paris. Speakers Isobel Hadley-Kamptz author and journalist Kashif Mahmood Virk imam, Stockholm Ahmmadiyya congregation Brendan O’Neill editor, spiked Chair Rob Lyons science and technology director, Institute of Ideas

Listen to this session from the International Battles strand of the recent Battle of Ideas festival In the past few years, the Middle East has undergone serious convulsions, from the collapse of Iraq to the Arab Spring, the Syrian war and the Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen. The spread of Islamic State has wiped out one hundred-year-old borders in a matter of months, with large areas of Iraq and Syria now part of those countries only in name. America’s interest and power in the region seems to waning while regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran are becoming more assertive. A bewildering number of alliances and counter-alliances seem to be in play in which religious affiliations, local political grievances and powerful external players meet in a maelstrom. The Gulf states intervene against and for Sunni jihadists depending upon which state one looks at; America supports Iranian-backed militias in Iraq while backing Saudi-led airstrikes against Shia groups in Yemen; in Syria, America and its Arab allies are supporting Islamist groups against Assad, who is still supported by Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah. The US and Iran appear to have reached a historic agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy programme, just as US-Israel relations turn increasingly fractious; indeed, Israel is closer to Saudi Arabia when it comes to the nuclear deal, albeit for very different reasons. The Arab Spring was supposed to mean the end of tyranny and the rise of democracies across the region. Instead, states are imploding. Was this inevitable, or is there still hope for peace and democracy within the existing borders of countries like Syria and Iraq? Would their break-up mean anarchy or a new order based on more meaningful religious and ethnic identities? And while the Western powers were long considered the puppet masters of the Middle East, are the strings now in the hands of regional powers? Does the West even have a sense of its strategic interests in the region, or is it stuck in the past, supporting the wrong allies and condemning the region to years of chaos? What do the confusing alliances and counter-alliances tell us? And what future is there for the people of the Middle East? Speakers Gilbert Achcar professor of development studies and international relations; chair of Centre for Palestine Studies, SOAS, University of London Rosemary Hollis professor of international politics and director of the Olive Tree Programme, City University London Dr Tara McCormack lecturer in international politics, University of Leicester; author, Critique, Security and Power: the political limits to emancipatory approaches Karl Sharro architect; writer; Middle East commentator; co-author, Manifesto: Towards a New Humanism in Architecture Chair Joel Cohen judges co-ordinator, Debating Matters; freelance writer

In recent years, the popularity of e-cigarettes has exploded. They have been celebrated by many as being the greatest aid to smoking cessation ever invented, with even the anti-smoking group ASH giving them grudging approval. E-cigarettes do not contain the tar and toxins that make cigarettes harmful, but as this is a relatively new technology, some argue we cannot be sure of their long-term effects on people’s health. And even if they do turn out to be harmless, detractors worry they will ‘renormalise’ smoking and act as a gateway to smoking for young people. On these grounds organisations like the British Medical Association say they should be subject to the same stringent regulation, advertising bans and high taxes as tobacco. Internationally, a WHO report has called for them to be banned in public globally and the sale of e-cigarettes and the nicotine liquid they use is already banned in most Scandinavian countries. Several US cities, including New York and Chicago, have banned their use in public places. As of 2016 in the UK, e-cigarette manufacturers will have to choose between being regulated as a medicine by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency or adhere to strict new EU regulations that would put them under similar regulation to tobacco products. The Welsh Health Ministry has said it would like to ban their use in public places and, across the UK, many pubs, workplaces, universities and public transport companies have already banned their use despite the lack of state coercion or public demand to do so. There is resistance, however: the WHO report was met with an open letter from a group of over 50 leading doctors and scientists from 15 countries urging them to reverse their call for a ban, stating that: ‘There is no evidence at present of material risk to health from vapour emitted from e-cigarettes’ and that there is no ‘credible evidence’ that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to smoking tobacco.  Should the precautionary principle be applied in regard to e-cigarette regulation? Should we be wary of the rise of e-cigarettes when many say we should be striving towards a nicotine-free society?  Or, is the movement to ban or hyper-regulate e-cigarettes less to do with concern for people’s health and more about a broader culture war over people’s lifestyle choices? Speakers Lorien Jollye vaping advocate, New Nicotine Alliance UK Dr Richard Smith chair of trustees, ICDDR,B; former editor, British Medical Journal; chair, Patients Know Best Christopher Snowdon director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression Duncan Stephenson director of external affairs, Royal Society for Public Health Chair Rossa Minogue resources editor, Institute of Ideas

Debate at the Battle of Ideas 2015 (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk) With the rise of fantasy and sci-fi, geek culture is now mainstream. Yet trailing its success has come vicious infighting amongst fans. 'Gamergate' moved quickly from a dispute between game developers and journalists to a row over gamers' attitudes towards women. Dr Matt Taylor's choice of a bawdy shirt overshadowed his work in landing the Philae lander on a comet. The rise of social media has led to 'calling people out', harnessing the power of public shaming. 'Social Justice Warriors' have provoked sub-cultures such as 'Sad Puppies', who reject perceived politically correct orthodoxies. How are the frontlines of the culture wars changing? SPEAKERS Allum Bokhari (columnist, Breitbart) Serena Kutchinsky (digital editor, Prospect) Dr Maren Thom (researcher, film, Queen Mary University of London) Jason Walsh (journalist; foreign correspondent, CS Monitor) Milo Yiannopoulos (technology editor, Breitbart)

Trigger warning: 'If you're easily offended you really shouldn't come.' - Claire Fox With just a few days to go before the Institute’s annual Battle of Ideas at the Barbican in London, Rob Lyons, Claire Fox and David Bowden get together to talk about what makes the festival unique and why it’s an unapologetically unsafe space where ideas are fought over and contested, as well as discussing some of the sessions they’re looking forward to most. To find out more about this weekend’s festival and buy tickets visit the Battle of Ideas website.