For a while during the initial phases of the first lockdown, there was some discussion about the prevention paradox, the risk that beneficial actions taken on a population basis will leave many individuals thinking: what’s the big deal, or, why should I pay that price?
A good summary of the prevention paradox is contained within this pre-Covid quote from the International Journal of Epidemiology (emphasis mine):
‘[the population strategy] offers only a small benefit to each individual, since most of them were going to be all right anyway, at least for many years. This leads to the prevention paradox: “A preventive measure which brings much benefit to the population [yet] offers little to each participating individual” … and thus there is poor motivation for the subject. … In mass prevention each individual has usually only a small expectation of benefit, and this small benefit can easily be outweighed by a small risk’
The first Covid lockdowns in Europe helped to slow the spread of the virus. However, since relatively few people knew anybody who had contracted the virus, there was an insidious view that led to the “huh - there’s nothing to worry about” perspective that in turn led to people ignoring the rules at the individual and small group level, because those individuals couldn’t truly process the cost-to-them-benefit-to-others analysis.
So… that link to Brexit, then?
It’s tenuous, I’ll admit, but since it did occur to me in this context, I’ll stick with trying to figure out what it was I thought I meant.
Having the UK in the EU was a form of prevention paradox because, although the weight of the UK and like-minded countries within the EU - those who were suspicious of ever-further integration - put a significant brake on that integration, nevertheless individuals and groups could still feel that having the UK in the EU was a higher cost to them, whilst never eliminating the risk of superstatism. If I try to parse the definition from above:
“[A preventive measure] … [brings much benefit to the population] yet [offers little to each participating individual]”
Becomes…
[Having the UK in the EU] … [enables free trade and bureaucracy-free travel to the whole country] yet [does not give each individual immediately better conditions, more money, succour in patriotism or prevent "the EU" from smashing “us” and “them all” together]
Something like that!
The opposite is clearer: now that Brexit has happened, could the EU now be more inclined to drift towards that federal superstate so detested in principle by those who loved their nations? Perhaps the fact of taking the UK out of the EU makes the thing that many were suspicious of more likely. It’s just that German and Dutch, Polish and Italian opponents of the superstate are no longer supported by their British colleagues.
Told-you-soism
You can imagine Brexiters now actively hoping that the EU will fling itself gung-ho into becoming a superstate, purely so that they can say “told you so!” Indeed, perhaps there is even now a secret clan within the European Research Group working behind the scenes to promote and to facilitate the institution of a Grand State of Europe…
The Brexit paradox?
Although I think I managed to squeeze the logic into the constraints of the definition of the paradox, I can’t strongly argue that the UK being in the EU was a true prevention paradox; it was just a prevention.
But this is exactly what I hoped that my blog would do for me - getting me to “think in writing”. This post has also been a thought starter for trying to describe what being European means to me.
