Not now, Theresa: Postponing Britain’s EU goodbye

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow. 135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com. Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host, Anne McElrovoy, in for Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. The legalisation of cannabis has been on the rise in several countries around the world and a lot of American states as well. But a new report indicates there's a link between high intensity cannabis and cycling. Kosis family style platters may be all the rage in restaurants, but as you wonder if it's okay to spear that last shrimp, might sharing from a single dish make us all better at negotiating a truce on more important matters? But first, it's just over a thousand days since the result of the Brexit referendum. As it stands, the time left to decide how the United Kingdom will leave the EU might be better counted in hours. Under current law, that separation from the eu, with or without an agreement on the actual terms of withdrawal, will take place on 29th March. Next Friday. Today, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, will visit Brussels to ask European leaders to grant an extension to the deadline. She wants an extra three months. As Prime Minister, I am not prepared to delay Brexit any further than the 30th of June. This house has indulged itself on Europe for too long. Yesterday, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said a short delay as possible, but only on condition the UK Parliament approves the current withdrawal agreement.

I believe that a short extension will be possible, but it will be conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons.

That deal, which took Mrs. May two years to negotiate, has been overwhelmingly rejected by MPs not once. But her third attempt to bring it to a vote this week was thwarted by Parliamentary Speaker John Burko on the grounds that it had nothing new in it. Last night, Mrs. May gave a televised statement from 10 Downing Street. She addressed the British people directly. Two years on, MPs have been unable to agree on a way to implement the UK's withdrawal. As a result, we will now not leave on time with the deal on 29th March. This delay is a matter of great personal regret for me. And of this I am absolutely sure you the public have had enough. Members of Parliament won't have liked being blamed, but they still face the same Choice vote through Mrs. May's deal next week or risk leaving the EU with no deal and the possibility of economic chaos.

Donald Tusk came out on Wednesday afternoon and sent a small bombshell through Westminster.

Duncan Robinson is our political correspondent.

He declared that a short extension was possible, but only on the proviso that Theresa May's deal is passed by Parliament.

What's the status of Donald Tusk in all this?

Now, he's the President of the European Council, so he's not a dictator. He shapes the meetings, but he does not decide the their conclusions. The fundamental decision will still be taken by 27 leaders.

And does that mean that this idea of a long extension is now being ruled out? He seemed to be putting a shotgun to the head of the British Government.

He made clear that a short extension was only possible if there was a deal. But he was silent on the prospect of a log extension. Now, a lot of people have jumped on that and said that that is still therefore on the table.

And what's the impact of this intervention been?

Well, Theresa May had hoped to get an extension so that she would have more time to try and pass her deal through a Parliament that doesn't seem to want it right now. What Donald Tusk has said is that you can have your extension, but only if you get your deal through Parliament first. And that gives MPs a very, very tough choice to make in the next week.

Duncan, we got an impromptu televised statement from the Prime Minister last night. What was she trying to achieve?

She was trying to hammer home the message to MPs that their voters are very fed up and bored with Brexit, essentially, and that they want this done with and that the quickest way of getting this done is for MPs to vote for her deal.

My guess is she's trying to get more momentum through this statement that will pull waverers in her own party and in the Northern Ireland DUP over the line. Any chance, from what you saw, the.

Initial reactions from MPs, which are the people she needs to win over doesn't seem to be particularly good. They don't like the tone. She tried to pit as the people versus Parliament and she was on the side of the people, which is given that if she's an mp. She was elected like everybody else. That doesn't go down very well in the Commons.

And it's the MPs who control the process and decide whether she gets the deal through.

And that's the fundamental problem she has. She can appeal to the people all she wants, but unless she can get enough votes in Parliament to get her deal to go through, it won't.

But there's another conundrum for Theresa May, isn't there, which is that Donald Tusk has sharpened that timeline and the pressure while at home in Parliament. The speaker, powerful figure in Parliament, John Burko, has said that this deal can't come back unless it is in a considerably different state.

There are two ways out of that pickle. The first is that Theresa May can argue that because of Tusk's ultimatum, fundamentally the thing they'll be voting on is different to what it was before, ergo, they can have another vote. And the other way out is that Parliament can effectively have a vote to have a vote. And if Parliament's indicated it really does want to vote on this, then the speaker shouldn't really stand in their way. But that's only a convention.

Why has Theresa May's deal, this leaving deal from the eu, been such a difficult sell?

The main problem Theresa May has had in getting her deal through is that there's a large chunk of her party who think that it's a bit too soft. They want a firmer, clearer break with the European Union. And Theresa May deal potentially leaves Britain tangled up with some EU rules and regulations over the long term. And big chunks of the Conservative Party, which is Theresa May's party, is very, very worried about that.

What do you think Theresa May's thoughts will be as she rolls into Brussels facing this particular welcome?

In some senses, she might welcome Tusk's remarks because her policy has always been to give MPs a cliff edge, and Tusk has brought the cliff edge a bit closer.

I'm wondering what you think Theresa May's tactics and strategy will be now that she's heard what Mr. Tusk has to say. She will have to try and get this deal through very fast. But that wasn't going anywhere. Where are these votes going to come from?

There are a few avenues. There are lots of people in the Conservative Party who don't want no deal, but were very skeptical of May's deal. And so when push comes to shove, we'll fall in line. It's the same situation with the dup, the Northern Irish Party, who have Huge amounts of criticism for the deal, but. But again, if the option is this chaotic Brexit, they might still opt for it. And the final and probably the most tricky part, people to win over will be some Labour MPs. So MPs from the opposition party who, while they do not like the idea of May's deal, and they do not like the idea of supporting a Conservative government, like the idea of a no deal Brexit, even worse than all that. And that will finally cause enough MPs to maybe hold their nose and back the deal.

A thousand days have gone by since that referendum. Feels like ancient history. Does this feel very much like the endgame to you? The last squares on the board?

There have been a lot of crunch moments, but this one seems much crunchier than the others. This is a legal date. This isn't a self imposed. We must do it by six months before. So there's time for ratification. No in law unless something happens. Britain falls out the EU on the 29th of March. So unless something happens in the next eight days, that is the status quo.

Bit of an unfair question, but where do you think this leaves things? What effect is it likely to have on Theresa May and her government and her deal?

I still think the deal will get through, but barely. There are more MPs who hate the idea of no deal than hate the idea of living with May's deal. And for that reason alone, they will, kicking and screaming, eventually vote for it.

Duncan, thanks for joining us.

Thank you, Anne.

In the last few decades, cannabis has been decriminalized in several countries and many American states, often for medicinal purposes and. And sometimes recreationally, too. But is it harmful? This week, the Lancet released a new report highlighting possible links between cannabis and psychosis. The research echoes concerns many people have long held about the drug.

The more young people take, the higher the dose, the more regularly the more it impacts on their education, their relationships around themselves.

Nick Hickmott works with Addaction, the British drug and mental health charity.

So we see young people getting into issues around mental health. Anxiety, depression, paranoia.

Although cannabis is illegal in Britain, Mr. Hickmott says a lot of people smoke it. But he worries that the effects on the brain, especially the developing brain, are poorly understood.

I've spoken to young people who've been feeling so anxious that they can't leave the house. And sometimes cannabis will alleviate that. But the young person has an understanding that it's feeding into a bigger picture.

He says some parents who remember smoking pot during their youth in the 1980s and 90s aren't especially bothered by their children smoking it too.

There's a level of acceptance in society around cannabis. It's in newspapers, it's on the news every day, it's been featured in our soap operas.

But the stuff typically available from the street drug dealers today is much stronger and its effects could be more damaging as well as.

So the study found that regular use of high potency cannabis increased the risk of developing psychosis by about five fold across about 11 sites in Europe.

Natasha Loder is the Economist's health Policy editor. She's been reporting this week on the Lancet's new paper on cannabis and psychosis in London.

This translated to about an extra 60 people who were diagnosed with psychosis who wouldn't have been had they not been smoking either high strength cannabis regularly or using cannabis daily.

And how surprising do you find this report? Because we hear on the one hand that some people have had concerns about cannabis and mental health for a long time, but then elsewhere that it is being prescribed for medicinal use and people don't seem to have too many concerns about side effects there. What's the balance?

We've known of a connection between psychosis and cannabis use for a long time. What this study does is takes a much more systematic approach in assessing this and it's a large, well conducted and so it kind of really builds our evidence to be able to say that we think that there is a connection. It has not proven a causative link. It tells us that it's very likely to be a risk factor for developing psychosis.

And on the question of prescribing it for medicinal purposes, what's the take?

So the take there is that any drug that's prescribed for medicinal purposes has side effects. And there's always a balance depending on what the actual illness is, as to sort of what the risks are and the benefits are of taking any drug. And that's no different with cannabis.

And it's playing into a debate about legalisation of cannabis, about policy choices around drugs. Do you think it's likely to move the dial on that?

The findings are going to feed both sides of the argument. On the one hand, you'll find people who are predisposed to being opposed to liberalization and they'll say, look, this is dangerous, we need to restrict its use because it causes harm. And on the other hand, the people who are in support of greater liberalization will say, look, people are getting psychosis from illegal, black market, high potency cannabis. We can't control this. What we have to do is reduce the harms. We need to minimise the risks by regulating it.

And it's interesting there that you refer to high potency cannabis. Can you explain what that means?

So high potency cannabis is a sort of strain of cannabis that contains a lot of a particular ingredient called tetrahydrocannabinol or thc. And this is the psychoactive ingredient. And it's measured in percentages. And high potency street skunk in London would be about 13 or 14% THC. It's possible to get strains that go up to 30% or more as well.

And I don't know your personal view on this, Natasha, would this study or studies of this scale and impact affect the kind of advice that you would give to people around cannabis consumption?

Yeah, it really would, I think, although it's not surprising. I think the strength of the evidence really kind of makes people like me take the connection much more seriously. And also, if you look at the extent to which it's influencing mental health services, say, in London, in terms of numbers, it seems to suggest that sizable numbers of people are developing psychosis as a result of cannabis use. And you really do have to take that seriously.

Thanks very much for joining us.

Thank you so much.

Sharing is something we all try to teach our kids, but any parent will tell you it's easier said than done, especially when it comes to food. A new study says, though it might be worth the effort.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un met last month to discuss nuclear disarmament of North Korea.

Matt Kaplan is a science correspondent at the Economist.

They shared a meal of shrimp cocktail, grilled sirloin and pyra kimchi in chocolate lava cake. And the negotiations ended up going quite sour. Donald Trump ended up going home early and nothing really moved forward on the North Korean peninsula.

Clearly a delicious repast, even if not the right outcome from that. Nice for them, but why are the rest of us interested?

Well, the food was brought to them on individual plates. And while we know from past research that sharing a meal with someone and having the same food will make you feel emotionally closer to them, the researchers behind this new experiment questioned whether or not sharing food off of a single platter might do even better. So to this end, Caitlin Woolley at Cornell University Ennailitz Fischbach at the University of Chicago ran a series of experiments with the guinea pigs of the scientific world. University students feeding them either family style or individual platters and then putting them through negotiation games to see how they behaved afterwards.

Some of us have experienced family Style food sharing that hasn't always ended in harmony. So I suppose the researchers wouldn't be sure at the outside whether it would make people more competitive or bring them closer together.

Well, that's precisely the issue, Ann. Actually, they were really wondering whether or not when you put food on a single platter and everyone has to feed off of it, especially two people who seem to be ravenous feeders like Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump, whether or not they might get quite territorial about how much food remained on the platter and go, oh, no, no, no, give me that platter. Give it back. Especially when it came to the chocolate lava cake.

How did the researchers then go about setting up the experiment?

Well, they started with baskets of tortilla chips and salsa. They would stack a platter of tortilla chips, same amount of tortilla chips for one group of participants, or they would split that same amount. Same thing with the salsa. Either there would be a central bowl of salsa or two smaller bowls that were given to two people. And then they ran these people through negotiation games and tried to see who negotiated better.

What were they negotiating about?

They ran several different experiments, but the main one that really took my interest was they ran these people through a role play experience where one of them was representing a business and one of them was representing a union, and they were negotiating a wage for the people in the company. And every round that this thing went on, the worse the value of the score for these participants was. And so the sooner they could negotiate, the better it went off. And whoever negotiated the best deal won a cash reward from the scientists at the end.

And what was the takeaway? What difference did it make to the outcome?

The differences were significant. So the people who shared food were able to negotiate a reasonable outcome in 8.7 rounds on average, whereas those people who did not share food were only able to negotiate in 13.2 rounds on average. And when they replicated this experiment with different negotiations, they found exactly the same results. So when you share food, you're able to negotiate faster with your opponent, and you're certainly more willing to compromise.

Okay, well, that's one interesting experiment, but why would I not just think it's the way it happened to work out with these particular people, these particular tortilla chips?

Yeah, no, that's a good question. And, you know, psychology has been really on its own tail trying to deal with replication crisis in science. And so these researchers did the responsible thing and they ran the experiment again with a slightly different meal, with a slightly different negotiation situation. And the results replicated the Then they did it again, this time with some people who were friendly with one another and knew each other ahead of time, and some people who didn't know each other. And sure enough, people who are friendly negotiate more readily, which is what we would expect. But the effect was still amplified by the sharing of food, and this was seen in both strangers and people who were friends.

Maybe Theresa May could try offering her most ardent Brexiteers and remain as those tortilla chips.

Or perhaps Brussels sprouts.

Or Brussels sprouts. Thanks very much, Matt.

My pleasure, Anne.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. You can subscribe to the economist@exterator.com radio. Offer 12 issues for $12 or 12 pounds. We'll be back with you here, Tom. Sam.