Going Through The Motions

Another referendum was announced today, much to the horror of the Brussels elite. As usual, such an event merits a special mention on Mighty Democracy.

The Morals Of Capitalism

Capitalism has been the topic of much debate in recent times, and many disparaging remarks have caused politicians to call for all kinds of better capitalism, fairer capitalism, responsible capitalism and other such phrases. In order to put some sense and perspective to our current crisis it seems necessary to define capitalism and compare it to what we see in modern times in order to restore confidence in the word. 

Those who do not busy themselves with such definitions tend probably to have a negative reaction to the word capitalism. The USA is generally regarded as the most capitalist country on Earth and this is contrasted to Communism, previously embodied in Soviet Russia and now most famously in China. We read of how China has delivered the fastest ever period of economic growth and how the economies of the west are stagnating. Recession looms in the west and many begin to doubt capitalism as a system that delivers economic prosperity in a fair and sustainable manner. 

We have proven that capitalism works, economically that is, in that it is the most efficient way of fostering innovation and enriching a population with material wealth. All the great achievements in our history, in industry and technology, have come about not by government directed projects, but by individuals pursuing their own interests in a free society.

Critics of capitalism do not normally dispute this but instead tend to come at it from a moral standpoint, saying that the system does not deliver by some moral, ethical or spiritual measure, and that the inequalities it creates are not ‘fair.’ In order to understand why capitalism should be embraced, it is necessary to talk about what the word ‘fair’ actually means, and to understand that there has never been an alternative system proposed that adequately rewards everyone’s individual contribution to society.

The Death Of Democracy

The clip below shows Jose Manuel Barroso - President of the European Commission, making his acceptance speech in Strasbourg in 2009. As president of the European Commission, Barroso is responsible for all legislation passed. He is the Prime Minister of Europe.

                                    

Here is the President of the European Council - Herman Van Rompuy, responding to a young student's question.

In the clips above, they both use the word 'democracy,' Barroso with reference to his appointment as the leader of the government of Europe, and Van Rompuy with a palpable distaste for the word. These men share a vision for Europe, and indeed the whole world, wherein power is centralised within a supranational authority, and nation states no longer have full control of their country's laws. They are extremely close to achieving their goal.

This post focuses on the goals of the European Union's current leadership and examines them in the context of democracy and freedom.

Fear And Loathing In England

There are large Muslim populations living in western Europe (study from 2010), and numbers are rising, with especially large populations in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and the UK. 

The majority of Muslims in England are ‘westernised’ (for want of a better word) in that they enjoy living in a secular liberal society and participating in English culture. However, these days many that live within large Muslim communities do not become westernised; some groups are instead pulled back towards to the more ‘fundamental’ Islamic roots of their parents’ home country.

Although in no ways representative of the Islamic community as a whole, the anti-western sentiment being propagated in England has taken root and continues to increase its influence. For some Muslims, this pull perhaps only influences minor attitudes in their way of life, like a young man giving up on drinking alcohol, or a young woman choosing to cover her head at all times. For others it becomes a more complete aversion to our liberal democracy and in some cases even a desire to commit violent crimes in the name of Islam. 

The Case For Default: The Best Of The Bad

A default on sovereign debt within the Eurozone is widely considered to be the first domino of a violent chain reaction that would send a shockwave through the European banking system, triggering other sovereign defaults, a spate of financial sector nationalisation, and another world recession. It is seen as a cataclysmic event that must be avoided at all costs. 

However, the public have long ago woken up to the fact that these costs are to be borne not by those who made the foolish decisions to lend money to the untrustworthy governments and failing banks, as you would expect in a capitalist society, but instead by the hardworking majority, who are to be saddled with even more debt, taxes and decreased public services in order to prevent the default from ever happening.

Yes the politicians and corporations do run the show, but for those of us still privileged to live in a functioning democracy, our majority should be our saving grace. Peoples of Europe unite, and embrace default!

Localism 4: The End Of The United Kingdom?

Now that the question of Scottish independence has reared its head, it seems apt to once again make the case for the dispersal of power.

As per usual this blog supports referendums, particularly on constitutional issues and the devolution of decision making. This post builds on the a series of previous posts about the concept of localism, that power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level, so that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.

A greater degree of autonomy, and a more direct link between both citizens and their representatives and between taxation and expenditure, will revitalise Scottish democracy and give local people a greater sense of control and responsibility over their lives. If the Scottish people feel that their way of life differs significantly enough from the rest of the UK and that they would be freer as an independent state, they should go for it.

Wee Little Englanders

Once upon a time the phrase Little Englander was used to describe English people with anti-imperialist opinions, those who perhaps thought it best that England keep to its jurisdictions within its borders in the UK, or indeed that it should be independent from its UK partners. In the days when the expansion of the British Empire was the will of the King, to be a Little Englander was to be weak, and unpatriotic. 

Nowadays, the meaning of the phrase has changed dramatically. It is now more commonly used by those on the left of the political spectrum to criticise those on the right who may have doubts about certain aspects of globalisation. With the EU debate at a current prominence, some say that Britain’s size and lack of industrial might makes us too insignificant to survive alone in a 21st century globalised world. These same people use the phrase ‘Little Englanders’ to express their anger and disdain of the current conservative government whose actions tend towards putting the interests of England before the interests of Europe as a whole. 

All The King’s Men 2: Diplomats

This is the second part in a series about the inherent ineffectiveness of certain government positions and the need to democratise their functions for the good of the country. The first part can be read here.

The decisions that emerge from diplomatic negotiations differ all too often from what the majority of people would have preferred if they had had their say. Imagine if the people had been consulted with regard to major foreign policy decisions in the past. Imagine if the British people themselves had decided whether or not Blair’s findings warranted an invasion of Iraq, for example. One could imagine a very different outcome. In fact generally speaking, almost any decision to initiate war stems from the concentration of power, and would be rejected by the majority. In most situations, people would rather we just minded our own business.

The vast majority of diplomatic duties, being negotiations about peacekeeping, business and trade links and energy deals, international treaties, foreign embassies, visas and tourism etc, are almost entirely in the hands of specialist ambassadors and their teams of diplomats.

Diplomats collect and report information about the foreign country in which they are posted and give advice to the home country on how best to set foreign policy. They are then tasked with conveying the views of their home country’s government, in the best way possible, so that the host country might act in ways that please the home country’s interests. Without a doubt, diplomats are highly trained and highly skilled individuals. Over many years they have honed their diplomatic style and long term strategy, and the combination of knowledge and experience gives them unique capabilities in their job that should by no means be belittled.

However, even with such highly respected ‘experts’ at the helm, much of our foreign policy even nowadays is contrary to common sense, and would be significantly different if the majority of people had their say in the matter. You don’t need to be a specialist in Persian studies to realise that trying to gently persuade the Ayatollahs into quitting Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a waste of time, though it took the government long enough to come to its senses. You don’t need to have done extensive research about Israeli and Palestinian relations to understand that if Israel is in the UN, then Palestine should be too, regardless of whether or not negotiations are ongoing or if conflict will continue, which it inevitably will. You don’t need to be a tri-lingual European historian nor a Colonial and Commonwealth specialist to realise that in today’s globally interlinked economy, Britain has closer ties with Canada, Australia and India than it does with Germany, Italy and Poland, and that spending a lot of time, money and effort on EU integration might just be a bit narrow-minded.

In fact, the high specialisation and specific expertise that these diplomats possess, and the fact that they spend so much time abroad and in the company of other diplomats, may actually impair their understanding of Britain’s true interests. Even in today’s twenty first century, with internet and TV allowing millions of people to take part in worldwide debates, our foreign policy is frequently misunderstood. So what changes need to be made to better align foreign policy decisions with public opinion?

The Case For Regulation: How To Tame The Banking Sector

Deregulation of the financial sector is widely accepted as one of the contributors to the recent banking crisis that reached a peak in 2008. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 permitted the formation of one-stop super banks. Many institutions held and traded enormous portfolios of complex financial securities, the risks of which were not even sufficiently understood, let alone adequately provided for. During this time there was a degree of uncertainty between the FSA and the Bank of England over whose responsibility it was to regulate the banks. Things got out of hand. 

Then again, over-regulation was also a contributing factor. As explained in more detail in a previous article, the government’s involvement in the banking sector to guarantee deposits for individuals, and the central bank’s involvement as a lender of last resort, creates an environment which incentivises excessive lending and debt creation.

However one weighs up the factors, it is generally accepted that the banking industry will always require regulation, or at least for some time to come, and many urge that strict rules should be put in place as soon as possible to prevent any of the calamities of the financial crisis from reoccurring. 

This article discusses the merits and limitations of the new bank regulations proposed in the UK and gives some thoughts about an alternative solution.