All of us have an opinion on the current situation regarding the UK's badly-conceived looming referendum on whether they wish to remain part of the EU or not. Sides are being formed and defences are being reinforced ready for the approaching battle. Unfortunately, it seems, even your allies should not be trusted...
David Cameron is a wilier old fox than you would give such a man who, through his parents' riches, never really needed to be talented. Some people say he is a male Margaret Thatcher (but without the balls). I think to view him so favourably to the Iron Lady is to compare suicide by messy drug overdose to a slight fever caused by a dodgy mushroom. He is a very, very cheap imitation of her, and just a sponsored high-ranking civil servant who has obviously been promised a cushy job or two on a few boards of directors once he leaves politics.
Anyhow, he seems to have continued that tradition of saying one thing while doing another. Think I'm being paranoid? Let's see the facts:
1. They'll take anyone's vote
Read this little beauty from the Guardian, which has arrived just in time for the referendum. In essence, it says that anyone not from the EU who wishes to remain in the country needs to earn over £35,000 to do so. It is a perfect vote-grabber. How do we stop so many of our good friends from Australia and Canada being kicked out? We vote for Brexit. Then we'll kick all the Poles and Lithuanians out and keep the Anglophones. See this in the news much? No. After the Tories' conduct in the general election, where every single vote counted, this is another one of those little toppers-up. Commonwealth citizens can vote in the election, so this is sure to help gain a few tens of thousands to the cause.
2. They'll upset a few people
To get the President of the United States to come to your country and tell everyone you are going to the back of the queue (a British word), is to get up the nostrils of hundreds of thousands of people who think it's none of his business. Forget those who are persuaded by him - this is about gaining numbers on the "no" side.
3. They'll make it harder for those likely to vote "in" to do so
The referendum takes place during Glastonbury and the European Football Championships, thus thousands of young people, who are more likely to vote "in" will unfortunately be away. Furthermore, the government recently changed the way people can vote - before the last general election, the PM thought it was a good idea to cancel the previous system of automatic registration, and introduce a process whereby newcomers and those who reach 18 have to consciously register. Out go several thousand more potential voters.
4. They'll put a lot of people off voting so many times in a short period
If my theory is right, there is one way to test it - the Scottish elections are coming up, as are the London elections, the Northern Irish and Welsh Assembly elections, the Police Commissioner elections, and the local government elections in England. They take place on 5th May. Election fatigue will set in when immediately after those, the EU referendum campaign really kicks off and people will be so fed up by 23rd June that there will be very few who will really feel like voting. Except, of course, those who are really passionate about it, which would be almost entirely made up of Brexiteers... there go some more potential voters.
5. They'll play to Pro-independence Scots - without lifting a finger
I can see it now - while they're upsetting a lot of Brits by getting Obama in on the act, they can also recruit hundreds of thousands of Scots by dropping a few verbal bombs on life after Brexit. And they don't need a Tory to do it for them... Nicola Sturgeon said she would think it almost certain that a new push for independence will be sought if there was a vote in favour of leaving the EU. How convenient. It is therefore in the interest of as many as 1.6 million people who voted to leave the UK in 2014 to vote Brexit and then trigger a second Scottish referendum almost immediately. What will be the result? The Scots will declare independence, apply to remain in the EU, as might the Welsh and Northern Irish, and the English will unilaterally leave both the UK and the EU.
6. They don't really care about your country
If those seeking the UK's withdrawal from the EU had patriotism in mind, they would be wise to remember that an awful lot of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and indeed English, don't think they do. In fact, I personally think it is all to do with money. England would become a test ground for extreme neo-liberal policy experiments. Where better than the home of the world's banks where nearly every commodity has been privatised and the National Health Service and education system are ripe for a sell-off? If you can't see the stitch-up here, then you undoubtedly see the goodness in everyone, even a Tory...
Conclusion:
So before you put your cross on the "Leave" side of the ballot paper, just remember this: what will be the true cost of Brexit? All the propaganda about saving money is phoney. You will not save money, and if you did, it will be minuscule - you won't even notice the difference. You think a Tory government is going to invest the money in the country? Don't make me laugh! They will invest it in their cronies and back-slapping maties in the City of London.
Project Fear, as it has been dubbed, is just that, but it is focusing on the wrong things. The UK is a testing ground for the future of democracy. They are importing Viktor Orban's style of garnering votes and many are being hoodwinked by it. Don't be fooled - if you genuinely are tired of the EU and its decadencies, vote "Remain" and ask for - no, demand - reforms. But fight from the inside!
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 April 2016
Monday, 7 November 2011
What is democracy?
The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.
What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.
These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.
So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.
Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.
Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.
Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.
So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.
On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.
Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be
So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.
To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.
What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.
These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.
So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.
Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.
Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.
Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.
So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.
On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.
Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be
So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.
To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
The world in 2050 - part III, the scenarios
So, with the observations of the previous two articles in mind, how can the world look in 40 years?
If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.
Scenario 1: China rises and rises
With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.
Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.
The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.
Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.
Scenario II: China rises and falls
This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?
If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.
The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.
But there is an alternative.
An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.
A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.
We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.
If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.
Scenario 1: China rises and rises
With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.
Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.
The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.
Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.
Scenario II: China rises and falls
This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?
If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.
The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.
But there is an alternative.
An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.
A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.
We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Let's not be beastly to the English
All successful people are targets for being shot down by their detractors and those who are jealous of them. It has happened to me recently by certain self-important busybodies at a university where I was until recently injecting some badly-needed motivation and charisma into their rather humdrum, banal and ineffective courses. Some just didn't like the fact that I had a good relationship with the students and that my courses were over-subscribed. Oh yes, and one of the lesser staff members (whose whole philosophy on life is already a little backward-thinking) was investigating my private life, trying to find something to prove I was unsuitable for the position. Eventually they got me on the fact that I didn't have the word "doctor" before my name... As if a higher qualification matters to the overall ability to train and nurture 90 university undergraduates. All the qualifications in the universe do not make a good coach. I wrote a departure letter to my colleagues and left them to stew in their own self-obsessed juices. Still, whatever floats their boat.
And now, to my disbelief, I need to come to the aid of a group of people whom I have not considered to be a part of, but are the indigenous tribe to the place I was born, the English. I have forever classed myself as a British citizen. I think the word "British" is an inclusive, universal term for people who live in the British Isles and even beyond. You can be Scottish first and British second, or the other way round. Same for English, Welsh and dare I say Irish. But you can also be Jamaican and British, Kenyan and British, Canadian and British, Pakistani and British and even Polish and British, why not? It is an advantage we have over other countries in Europe, and makes us more ethnically versatile, tolerant and multi-faceted than the United States.
And this is why I consider it a crying shame that now the English (let's face it, the central pivots on whom their co-inhabitants spin) are feeling threatened, intimidated, spurned and unloved in their own backyard as well as far away.
There is firstly the West Lothian Question, the term coined by Enoch Powell about the paradox that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster have as much say over what happens in England as an English MP, but the same is not afforded to the English themselves as their own local questions are debated in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Stormont. This was tolerated until recently but more and more English people are becoming disenchanted with this situation. Why can that be?
It is simple. For ages now, the Scottish have always enjoyed support from the other Home Nations when competing in sports tournaments. The same for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the English have always been out on their own. This year, one Edinburgh company has made some t-shirts for the World Cup called "ABE", meaning "Anyone But England", a blatant message to those down south about where the Scottish loyalties lie. The English kind of know who they are and are quite comfortable with this, unlike the other areas of the UK, so they could swallow this type of tongue-in-cheek banter.
But the fact that the English are starting to feel that the Scottish are creaming state funds away from English areas to support their own projects, with a cry of indignation and a new round of discussions over independence if they don't get their wish is making the average English a little tired of the continual barrage of anti-Sassenach rhetoric. Taking into account that a person resident in Scotland can go to any university in the UK for free whilst English residents must pay (often running into ten thousand pounds of debt) is forcing English hearts to turn to stone.
And who can blame them?
But it is not just the Scots who are cranking up the anti-English sentiment. The Australians are playing their part too. In the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, the Australians fell behind the British in terms of medals and that made them determined to do something about it. So, as the British won a lot of cycling medals, the Australians have invested hundreds of thousands of their Australian dollars into building up their cycling unit, to the extent that only two years later they have gained three times more medals at the World Cycling Championships as the British team. OK, this is aimed at the British in general, but deep in their minds, it is because the English make up most of the team. The truth of this can be seen in the final of the Australian Open tennis in Melbourne, where the crowd took to singing support for Andy Murray. When asked why this should be so, many said because he's a non-English, English speaker, and therefore one of them.
How cynical.
So, let me tell you this: I have always stuck up for the underdog, if the cause was justified. That means even French and Russians, Poles and Americans, when being needlessly picked upon. The English have put up with others' detractions for a long time but nobody has defended them. This has caused a notable rise in the amount of English people who, even only ten years ago would have never considered the dissolution of the United Kingdom, see it as a necessary step in their rights to reclaim some dignity. You can impose yourself on one nation's hospitality and tolerance for only so long, before they tell you to go off and bother someone else. That is where England happens to be today.
Beware, the Scottish National Party, you may just get your wish, and then who will subsidise your lavishly extravagant social democratic state?
Reasons to be proud of being British:
1. The BBC.2. The tolerance and open-mindedness afforded to all-comers of any nation if they are prepared to work.
3. Religious freedom, even to the point of being over-tolerant to fundamentalists.
4. British philanthropy and charity rundraising - Comic Relief, Sport Relief, Band Aid, eccentric events and feats to raise money for worthy causes.
5. Christie, Hardy, Thomas, Burns, Austen, Rowling, Pratchett, Bateman, McDermid, etc...
6. John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson, Billy Connolly, Dawn French, Tommy Cooper, etc...
7. Sir Chris Hoy, Jenson Button, Gareth Edwards, George Best, Ryan Giggs, Sir Steve Redgrave.
8. The pound Sterling.
9. The Commonwealth.
10. The English language.
11. Keynes, Rutherford, Newton, Macadam, Darwin, Berners Lee, Brunel, Adams, etc...
12. Flower of Scotland, Land of my Fathers, Danny Boy, Land of Hope and Glory
13. The Sunday trip to the garden centre
14. Womens' Institute, Scouts, Girl Guides, Salvation Army, etc...
15. Rugby, Curling, Tennis, Golf, Snooker, Badminton, Bobsleigh, Cricket, Darts, Table Tennis.
16. Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Tom Jones
17. The Industrial Revolution.
18. Common Law and precedence
19. Sir Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, Benjamin Disraeli
20. Fair play.
These are just some reasons why we should be immensely proud of our heritage, why we need to put our differences behind us and start working again as a team. Because although the British saved the world from the ravages of totalitarianism, nobody will save her from herself.
And now, to my disbelief, I need to come to the aid of a group of people whom I have not considered to be a part of, but are the indigenous tribe to the place I was born, the English. I have forever classed myself as a British citizen. I think the word "British" is an inclusive, universal term for people who live in the British Isles and even beyond. You can be Scottish first and British second, or the other way round. Same for English, Welsh and dare I say Irish. But you can also be Jamaican and British, Kenyan and British, Canadian and British, Pakistani and British and even Polish and British, why not? It is an advantage we have over other countries in Europe, and makes us more ethnically versatile, tolerant and multi-faceted than the United States.
And this is why I consider it a crying shame that now the English (let's face it, the central pivots on whom their co-inhabitants spin) are feeling threatened, intimidated, spurned and unloved in their own backyard as well as far away.
There is firstly the West Lothian Question, the term coined by Enoch Powell about the paradox that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster have as much say over what happens in England as an English MP, but the same is not afforded to the English themselves as their own local questions are debated in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Stormont. This was tolerated until recently but more and more English people are becoming disenchanted with this situation. Why can that be?
It is simple. For ages now, the Scottish have always enjoyed support from the other Home Nations when competing in sports tournaments. The same for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the English have always been out on their own. This year, one Edinburgh company has made some t-shirts for the World Cup called "ABE", meaning "Anyone But England", a blatant message to those down south about where the Scottish loyalties lie. The English kind of know who they are and are quite comfortable with this, unlike the other areas of the UK, so they could swallow this type of tongue-in-cheek banter.
But the fact that the English are starting to feel that the Scottish are creaming state funds away from English areas to support their own projects, with a cry of indignation and a new round of discussions over independence if they don't get their wish is making the average English a little tired of the continual barrage of anti-Sassenach rhetoric. Taking into account that a person resident in Scotland can go to any university in the UK for free whilst English residents must pay (often running into ten thousand pounds of debt) is forcing English hearts to turn to stone.
And who can blame them?
But it is not just the Scots who are cranking up the anti-English sentiment. The Australians are playing their part too. In the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, the Australians fell behind the British in terms of medals and that made them determined to do something about it. So, as the British won a lot of cycling medals, the Australians have invested hundreds of thousands of their Australian dollars into building up their cycling unit, to the extent that only two years later they have gained three times more medals at the World Cycling Championships as the British team. OK, this is aimed at the British in general, but deep in their minds, it is because the English make up most of the team. The truth of this can be seen in the final of the Australian Open tennis in Melbourne, where the crowd took to singing support for Andy Murray. When asked why this should be so, many said because he's a non-English, English speaker, and therefore one of them.
How cynical.
So, let me tell you this: I have always stuck up for the underdog, if the cause was justified. That means even French and Russians, Poles and Americans, when being needlessly picked upon. The English have put up with others' detractions for a long time but nobody has defended them. This has caused a notable rise in the amount of English people who, even only ten years ago would have never considered the dissolution of the United Kingdom, see it as a necessary step in their rights to reclaim some dignity. You can impose yourself on one nation's hospitality and tolerance for only so long, before they tell you to go off and bother someone else. That is where England happens to be today.
Beware, the Scottish National Party, you may just get your wish, and then who will subsidise your lavishly extravagant social democratic state?
Reasons to be proud of being British:
1. The BBC.2. The tolerance and open-mindedness afforded to all-comers of any nation if they are prepared to work.
3. Religious freedom, even to the point of being over-tolerant to fundamentalists.
4. British philanthropy and charity rundraising - Comic Relief, Sport Relief, Band Aid, eccentric events and feats to raise money for worthy causes.
5. Christie, Hardy, Thomas, Burns, Austen, Rowling, Pratchett, Bateman, McDermid, etc...
6. John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson, Billy Connolly, Dawn French, Tommy Cooper, etc...
7. Sir Chris Hoy, Jenson Button, Gareth Edwards, George Best, Ryan Giggs, Sir Steve Redgrave.
8. The pound Sterling.
9. The Commonwealth.
10. The English language.
11. Keynes, Rutherford, Newton, Macadam, Darwin, Berners Lee, Brunel, Adams, etc...
12. Flower of Scotland, Land of my Fathers, Danny Boy, Land of Hope and Glory
13. The Sunday trip to the garden centre
14. Womens' Institute, Scouts, Girl Guides, Salvation Army, etc...
15. Rugby, Curling, Tennis, Golf, Snooker, Badminton, Bobsleigh, Cricket, Darts, Table Tennis.
16. Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Tom Jones
17. The Industrial Revolution.
18. Common Law and precedence
19. Sir Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, Benjamin Disraeli
20. Fair play.
These are just some reasons why we should be immensely proud of our heritage, why we need to put our differences behind us and start working again as a team. Because although the British saved the world from the ravages of totalitarianism, nobody will save her from herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)