Antony Flew dies

The world-famous atheist who found God (sort of).

Professor Antony Flew, a distinguished British philosopher whose 1950 paper Theology and Falsification was, according to the Telegraph, "reputedly the most frequently quoted philosophical publication of the second half of the 20th century", has died at the age of 87.

Flew was also a celebrated atheist, for many decades often referred to as the best-known proponent and justifier of that position on the planet. But then, within the past few years, he changed his mind. The headlines (over)simplified it -- "Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all" was how the Sunday Times reported the story in 2004. 

Flew had in fact become a deist, a word that the Sunday Times managed not to mention once in its article. As I wrote in the 2009 NS "God" issue:

Flew was no more sympathetic to the revealed religions of the Book, with their "monstrous Oriental despots" of gods, as he called them, than before. He had simply come to the conclusion that, at the very least, there was probably some kind of "first cause"; and that this, rather than an interventionist deity presiding over an afterlife, was what he meant by "god".

You can find the full piece here. My own sadness is that I would dearly have loved to have met and talked with Professor Flew, but as I explained last year, he refused my request for an interview -- not because he bore me or the NS any animosity, but because he clearly felt buffeted and hurt by the turmoil in which he found himself after he announced his conversion.

All I would say is that he was a man who bravely sought the truth as he saw it right to the end, and at some considerable personal cost. Few of us could hope to do better than that.

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.