Staying powers? The G7’s changing role

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. A tribunal in Britain made a landmark ruling yesterday on the case of a woman who was fired for expressing a gender critical view that sex is immutable regardless of gender self identification. We pick through the language and the legalities and if you like perpetual rootlessness and camper vans and don't mind having to hunt for a shower, maybe VanLife is for you. It's a big hit on Instagram and on the balance sheets of van renovation firms, but it isn't as simple or as cheap as it seems. First up, though.

Four leaders to meet wouldn't do them any harm. Four leaders to meet wouldn't do them any harm.

For leaders in the English county of Cornwall, Sea shanties are being sung ahead of today's start of the G7 summit. Heads of government from America, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada are also looking to establish some harmony. The summit marks Joe Biden's first overseas trip as president. He spoke to American troops in Britain on his arrival.

At every point along the way, we're going to make it clear that the United States is back and democracies of the world are standing together to tackle the toughest challenges and the issues that matter most to our future.

His tour will include a visit with the Queen in Windsor, NATO and EU meetings in Brussels, and a summit with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Geneva. Yesterday, he met with Britain's Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

It's wonderful to listen to, to the Biden administration and to Joe Biden because there's so much that they want to do together with us, from security, NATO to climate change. And it's fantastic. It's a breath of fresh air.

Today both will join other G7 leaders to coordinate policy on climate change, curbing the influence of Russia and China. And of course, the pandemic. They're expected to commit a billion COVID vaccine doses to low and middle income countries. America and Britain have already committed 600 million. The immediate crises are clear. But a bigger question hanging over the summit is about the primacy of the G7 itself.

The goal of this weekend's summit is first of all to discuss the very big items that the world has on its agenda from COVID to climate change.

Daniel Franklin is the Economist's executive and diplomatic editor.

But also, I think, to re establish the west or try to as a coherent, purposeful force that is able to act together on these big issues. Something that was in question really in a serious way for many years under the Trump administration.

And with Mr. Trump no longer in the White House, does G7 diplomacy go back to the way that it was for Joe Biden and his counterparts?

Joe Biden starts with a huge advantage, which is just not being Donald Trump. So as far as the other allies are concerned, having someone who they genuinely see as being committed to internationalism, of not risking at any moment upsetting the apple cart and saying something that is going to make it look like a G6 plus one rather than a G7, or as President Trump did in the Canadian G7 summit, refused to sign the final communique and insult his host.

The relationship that I've had with the people, the leaders of these countries has been, I would really rate it on a scale of 0 to 10. I would rate it at 10. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're doing and they know very well that I don't. So we're negotiating.

That's not going to happen. But that said, the allies, the other allies have been shaken by the experience of recent years and will take some time, I think, to be fully reassured, if they ever will be, that America is permanently back, that America might not be tempted by the America first ism that was the feature of Trump. So can they treat America again as the predictable ally that they would like to have?

And what about the other leaders around the table? What's at stake for the host country, Britain, the other members?

Well, it's an important summit for Boris Johnson. This is a time when clearly Brexit Britain has a chance to put itself on the world stage to show what he hopes will be global Britain, open to the world, playing an important part at the high table. Unfortunately, Brexit is also somewhat hanging over the summit because there's a row over the trade agreement with the European Union and In particular, the Irish dimension of it is something that is actually quite close to Joe Biden's heart.

And you know, my view and the view of my predecessor of the Obama Biden administration on the Good Friday Agreements, we strongly support them, think it's critically important to be maintained. And the political economic stability of Northern Ireland is very much in the interest of all our peoples, people to people.

But nevertheless, I think posting a good summit and being the instigator of a lot of, particularly the vaccine and the climate initiatives is something that will be very important for Britain and for the other countries. Everybody, everybody will be keen to impress their importance and their commitments with America. Japan has an Olympic Games coming up in France and Germany. There are elections not too far away. So it's a time of interest actually from every angle for the G7.

And so about that. What's your view on the G7 as a sort of useful diplomatic block given the way the world is today?

Well, the G7 was formed back in 1975, actually as the G6. It became a G7 a year later when Canada joined primarily for economic purposes at a time of extreme difficulty for the world economy in the belief that countries that at the time accounted for 70% or so of the global GDP, if they acted together, they could really help the world economy get back on its feet. Now, since then, the world has changed an awful lot. The G7 has become about a lot more than just the economy, but it's also shrunk in relative size in terms of its weight in the world. It's now about 40% of global GDP. And at various times, some people have started to question whether it really made sense to have this grouping at all. Perhaps the G20 made more sense, bringing in the big emerging economies, not just the ones from the rich developed countries. Sometimes people have thought that maybe it's really about managing the world with a G2 of America and China. So I think the future of the G7 is very much question mark hangs over it about how much it will matter. But it has to start with a sense of being able to, as Joe Biden often says, playing a weightier role with allies acting together than they can individually in pushing big important matters of the global agenda forward.

But as things stand now, do you think that they still can? Can they from this meeting press those kinds of big changes?

I think they can make a start. We've already seen in the run up to this meeting, the G7 finance ministers reached an agreement between themselves on minimum global corporate tax. And that's then something that they would have to take to wider groupings like the G20. And I think something similar can happen both on perhaps creating some momentum for the bigger summit that will happen later this year, which is the COP26 summit in Glasgow in the autumn. And I think the immediate test of the G7's credibility comes in the immediate crisis that the world is facing, and that's to do with the pandemic. The west has been extraordinary in developing vaccines and cranking up production, but it's used them almost entirely for its own purposes until now. It's been very slow to make them available on a large scale to less privileged countries. And yet the return on that investment will be absolutely extraordinary. It's clearly the right thing to do, both morally and in the self interest of the West. So if the G7 manages to get its act together in a serious way on vaccines, in commitments to Covax, in actually getting these things moving soon, then I think people will start to see a real point to it.

Daniel, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you, Jason.

I'm proud of the role that I've played in clarifying the law and inspiring more people to speak up. Maya Forstatter, a British international development researcher, was fired in 2019 for tweeting that men cannot become women, that sex is not to be conflated with gender identity. Yesterday, she won a key legal victory. A tribunal ruled she cannot be discriminated against because of a sincerely held position. Being free to hold a belief means the freedom from being harassed, discriminated against, or having your livelihood taken away from you if you express that belief.

Yesterday's decision is important because it ruled that so called gender critical beliefs, that is the belief that sex is immutable and that human beings cannot change sex, are protected under English law under the Equality Act.

Rob Gifford is a senior editor at the Economist.

And that means that people cannot be discriminated against for holding them. And this reversed a previous tribunal ruling in her case which said that those beliefs were not protected.

And so what was the substance of that prior ruling?

Well, the prior ruling dealt with Maja Forstatter's employment. She was employed on a contract by a think tank called the Centre for Global Development, which was based in London, but its headquarters are in the United states. And in 2018, she decided to jump into the debate about sex and gender on Twitter and said what many trans people found to be very controversial and offensive. Things such as men cannot change into women, and various other things about the protection of women's rights. Someone in the think tank complained, and her contract was then not renewed. She claims that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs. And she claimed in the initial tribunal that her beliefs should be respected in the same way that any religious or philosophical belief would be. The case came to global attention because J.K. rowling, the author of the Harry Potter book books, who is known also to hold gender critical views, tweeted her support. And this original tribunal found that she had not been discriminated against for her gender critical views.

And what was the logic behind that decision?

Well, the judge in the initial tribunal, his words were extremely strong. He said that her views were not worthy of respect in a democratic society and incompatible with human dignity and. And the fundamental rights of others. He also called her views absolutist, noting the enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a trans person. The judge yesterday in the appeal said that the original tribunal was implicitly making a value judgment based on its own view on the legitimacy of the belief. And in doing so, it failed to remain neutral and failed to abide by the cardinal principle that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish, subject only to a few modest minimum requirements.

So yesterday's ruling protects the right of someone to hold to express those beliefs. But the question about this has also been about the protection of the people that those kinds of comments might be about.

Well, that's, of course, the crucial balance here. And the judge was at pains to make clear that this does not mean that it can just be open season on criticizing and harassing trans people. And it's this balance that has been crucial in this whole debate. The ruling yesterday said that the claimant, Meyer Forstater, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. It was interesting in terms of other parts of the judgment, because the judge said that a philosophical belief that could be excluded from protection had to be akin to Nazism or. Or totalitarianism. And he said that Meyer Forstatter's belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism. So the key thing here is just balancing the protections for both sides.

And do you think that this ruling will change how employers deal with these kinds of issues in terms of the.

Sort of balance within the workplace? Though Maja Forstatter did say one very pointed thing yesterday in her response to the ruling, which is that she believes that there is a high degree of institutional capture within Britain that, partly out of fear, HR departments, schools, government departments, they're so afraid of being transphobic that they sort of go along with the idea that anyone who says anything must be transphobic. And she was at pains to make this point that that sort of institutional capture, where her view is often not accepted as a valid view by HR departments around the country, is something that she thinks really needs to be addressed off back of this ruling.

And the debate about this case has been very charged in Britain and emblematic of equally charged issues around the world. How is this ruling being perceived?

Well, Maya Forstatter's former employer said that the decision was disappointing and surprising. Trans rights groups said the same. Of course, Maja Forstatter's supporters have celebrated, but the broader social media, the Twittersphere, of course, blows up at the extremes. And that's really part of the problem here, is that there are actually moderates on both sides who can see that there is clearly a clash of rights here between the rights of trans people and the rights of women who stand up and say we don't accept this. And the role of equality law is of course to resolve these clashes. And I think hopefully yesterday's ruling sort of lays a foundation re emphasizes the law that both views are valid. I think it's hoped that perhaps the moderates on both sides will be able to come together a little bit more. And even though they don't agree, they can agree to disagree.

But again, this is an issue that goes far beyond England and Britain. How much do you think this will serve as a template for other jurisdictions?

Well, that's an excellent question. This ruling obviously doesn't have any jurisdiction in other parts of the world, but in this very heated ongoing debate, there's no doubt that other countries, Australia, America and into mainland Europe are looking at all these kinds of rulings and that there is a chance that it could feed into the debates that they're having in their own jurisdictions. It is a landmark ruling in English law, which will definitely affect the freedom that people have and the confidence people have to hold views that may be unpopular not just on this, but on many other different subjects in the workplace.

Thanks very much for your time, Rob.

Thank you, Jason.

Even if you're not on Instagram, you've probably seen the pictures online. Unfeasibly happy people in front of stunning mountain backdrops or undulating coastlines. And a van, usually a tricked out camper van with all the modern conveniences, design heavy, eminently Instagrammable. These days, remote working is in, long commutes are out, and more and more people, people are becoming convinced that the only life for them is van life.

Interest in van life has definitely surged the last few years. The latest census data shows that about 102,000 people reported living in a van, an RV, or a boat in 2016. And in 2019, that was up to 140,000 people. Big increase in the last few years.

Erin Braun is the Economist's Mountain west correspondent.

Take a look on Instagram and search vanlife. A panoply of scenes will unfold before you. You'll see more than 10 million posts of normally young people leisurely sitting in their vans in front of a beautiful western landscape, selling this idea of a nomadic lifestyle. And everybody I talk to who lives this life cites freedom as the reason why they decided to embark on this journey. It was a drastic change from their everyday life, and they wanted to really experience the natural landscapes that America has to offer.

I've certainly seen the hashtag vanlife and the wonderful panoramic views that one gets. Is that Instagram reflection a fair one, do you think?

I think when you're talking about the views and the landscapes that you're able to see, that part is true. I talk to a lot of folks who flip from national park to national park, but it's a quite stark difference between what you see on Instagram and the realities of van life. People who live in their vans are constantly searching for showers, for toilets, for wifi, and it's definitely not as glamorous as Instagram makes it out to be. One portrayal of van life is the recent film that came out, Nomadland, starring Frances McDormand. The main character is living out of her van and traveling around the country. But that is kind of where the similarities between these two lifestyles stop. Some people are living in their vans because they have little alternative. The van lifers that you see on Instagram are choosing this lifestyle because of its bohemian nature. And it can be quite costly. If you take a van that you have already bought, most often for tens of thousands of dollars, into a shop to get it custom built. One of the shops that I talked to told me that that can cost anywhere from 50 to $100,000. So it's definitely not for the hard up. Even if, like some people I talk to, they're pursuing this lifestyle in part because rents have gotten very high in recent years.

And in light of all that, then how did the pandemic affect a trend that was clipping along at least until 2019?

At first, the pandemic shut things down. Everyone was locked down. Nobody was traveling the national parks closed, and it can be quite hard to find a place to park your van without a curious police officer or park ranger coming over and asking what you're doing. Outdoorsy is kind of an Airbnb like marketplace for van and camper rentals. And the founder told me that 95% of the firm's bookings were canceled right at the beginning of the pandemic. But then as lockdowns were lifted over the summer, business for outdoorsy and for a lot of these custom van shops absolutely boomed. People were ready to rediscover the outdoors. They didn't want to be cooped up anymore. They kind of took the pandemic as a chance to rediscover these landscapes and socially distance at the same time. So it's definitely on the up, which.

Is to say that now things are back to normal, that we'll get back on the curve and van life will just become more and more of a.

Thing, I think so. It seems like with rent increasing and remote work becoming more common because of the pandemic, van life is becoming more and more possible. We might see it dip as international travel picks up again in the next year or so, but I do think van life is still likely to grow.

And how about for you? Will you be reporting next from the back of a van?

After hearing about that search for showers and Wi fi I was talking about, I think I might try van life for a weekend, but that's probably where I draw the line.

Erin, thank you very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me, Jason.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. The show's editors this week are Marguerite Howell and Chris Impey. Our sound engineer is Daniel Lloyd Evans. Our senior producer is Sam Colbert. Our producers, Stevie Hertz and William Warren, and our assistant producer, Jason Hoskett. With extra production help this week from Kevin Koeners, Rory Galloway and Jolene Goffin. We'll all see you back here on.