Europhobia won't balance the books

We are in a pickle. Across Europe governments have amassed billions of debt, unemployment is on the rise, which, with the help of few cuts here and there, will go sky high, and the euro has wobbly foundations.

We are in debt because we believed ‘the markets’. We didn’t want to pry into contemporary sorcery; we didn’t want to ask how it all works; we left it to the ‘experts’. Too many numbers, too difficult and too big.

When Enron went bust in 2001, it became quite clear that there had been no checks and balances. The lawyers didn’t stop Enron cooking the books nor did the accountants. The problem, however, was wider. Banks, governments and investors had a stake (or a bribe?). They were all getting money from Enron, in one way or another. As a result, the analysts who asked questions got the sack and the journalists who pried were ridiculed. In the end, the ‘good guys’ won and Enron was on the dock, except some Enron executives left with millions and the ordinary people who had invested their life savings lost them all.

It couldn’t happen again, could it? It did and didn’t even need a fraud (technically), just an overcomplicated virtual system of money-making which was completely divorced from the real economy. We saved the banks because we depend on them and now will suffer deep cuts.

Across Europe people will have to bear a cross that is not theirs. The Germans are now paying for Greece’s dinner, but that is not sustainable. The problem, however, is not that European countries have different economies and different fiscal ‘approaches’. Northern Italy is more competitive than Germany, the south-east of England is more competitive than pretty much the rest of the UK. If we only look at competitiveness, we would end up splitting countries all the time. If the euro was only for the virtuous and wealthy, there would be a constant coming and going of member states.

The problem is that there is no auditing across Europe, there is no fund for rainy days, which means that at the first crisis, we are at each other’s throat. The nonsense about giving up sovereignty masks a nasty reality. First of all, states have ‘lost’, if they ever had it, sovereignty long ago. ‘Sovereignty’ didn’t stop the subprime crash in the US from reaching our shores. We need transparency and regulations at the international level.

There is nothing magic or scientific about the economy. It’s the other side of the coin of politics. If Europe (which includes the UK) is not united in tackling these issues, it’ll be bad news for us all.

Coalitions are NOT marriages

I think the Miliband brothers should form a coalition, it’s so this season!
Jokes aside, I'm generally in favour of coalitions because they temper excesses and offer stability. ‘Strong governments’ only turn into an ‘elected dictatorship’. This is because Parliament stops being a check on the executive as soon as the executive can rely on the party’s majority to get everything through. The courts tend to do the government’s bidding, so we’re stuffed. The champions of strong governments tend to forget that the point of government, in a democracy, is to reflect the public will and represent voters, not to impose one party’s ideology. The flawed logic of strong government can be taken to the extreme (and it has) to argue for a one-party rule.

I'm supportive of the present Lib-Tory coalition as it's the most democratic arrangement. The Tories got 36% of the vote, to go with Labour and other parties would have been a stitch up and an impossible coalition. I'm disappointed by the many concessions but it's difficult to comment on negotiations of which one is not party. Obviously a lot will have to be discussed and bargained in the years to come. There are, however, many good things such as fairer taxation by raising personal allowance; a long list of measures to protect civil liberties; an attempt at regulating the banking system; some ‘green’ policies.

You never know how coalition agreements are implemented, but what I’m uncomfortable with is the mediocrity implicit (well, it’s very explicit actually) in the understanding the Tories have of Britain as a country. This is evident in their approach to immigration (see previous comment) and Europe. The Lib Dems were not arguing for entry in the euro now, but for co-operation with European partners rather than pointless criticism and distance (not to mention the Tories’ choice of partners in the European Parliament). As argued before, nobody can tackle the environment, economy and immigration (to name a few) on its own.

Our democratic sovereignty depends on cooperation across Europe (and a stronger voice for the European Parliament). The Tories are stuck in fantasy-land and cling on to the fairy tale of 'parliamentary sovereignty' (denounced even by Dicey who was its greatest theorist). As the markets have shown, national sovereignty counts for nothing. Sovereignty didn't stop Argentina filing for bankruptcy, it didn't stop Britain from having to leave the common exchange rate after Black Wednesday and is not stopping speculators having a field day against Greece. Sovereignty, if anything, only protects the privilege of a few. During WWII, German Jews, French Jews, Polish Jews were citizens of sovereign countries, did their citizenship protect them? No, they got direct tickets for Auschwitz. It is individuals, their rights and freedoms, who matter.

I would have liked something bolder but the Lib Dems lost 5 seats and, with them, bargaining power. The media educated the public on the intricacies of the first past the post system and told people how to vote tactically. Surprise, surprise the Lib Dems didn’t do as well as expected. I believe it’s a start and I wish journalists had some integrity in reporting rather than constantly trying to find differences between the two parties, to argue for the break up of the coalition, or similarities, to argue for a merging of the two parties. I suggest they spend some time abroad and get to grips with coalition politics. Coalitions are NOT marriages. You need trust, but you don't have to like one another, you don't even need the same values. You need to be pragmatic and put government before party.

Nobody made history

Winter is back. As the cold winds bring the temperatures down across Britain, the political heat generated by the Prime Ministerial Debates has evaporated and turned into the dampness of political stalemate. It had been duly predicted so I’m not sure why everyone is puzzled.

I feel what happened is quite clear. First, Britain discovered TV which allowed people to learn more about the Lib Dems, the party the press ignores because they can’t win. The intelligent and sophisticated gentlemen and women of the press wouldn’t trouble our little heads with difficult things such as the fairness of an electoral system or the option of choosing a party other than the established two.

Second, people learned about the First Past the Post system and hated it. They found it unfair because they couldn’t vote what they really wanted as the percentage of the vote doesn’t necessarily translate into seats. Caught between the devil and the blue sea, 36% voted for the Tories, 29% voted against the Tories and 23% agreed with Nick.

The Tories are still held in suspicion. This is notwithstanding 13 years of a Labour government relying on cosmetic changes rather than radical reform, and a leader in Cameron promising renewal. I feel it is partly because Cameron took the appearance of Obama, but (mis)matched with negative rhetoric during the campaign. His Big Society offers no guarantee for those who will be bitten by the economic crisis, while his anti-immigration spite will only embitter the country more.

Nevertheless, the Tories got 36% of the popular vote so it’s up to them to form a government. The ‘Left’, ever so un-democratic and thinking they know best, should restrain from suggesting a left-of-centre coalition. It would be ill-conceived, arrogant and stupid. The ‘Right’, however, would better find cross-party agreement (yes, with Labour too) on the budget. It takes a little maturity, which is what the electorate said in their ballot papers: work together!

What was hailed as a ‘historical’ election turned into farce. Hundreds of people were turned away from polling stations notwithstanding a meagre 65% turnout. (Why can’t we vote on Sunday like everyone else? Why can’t we have electronic voting?)
What is historical is, perhaps, that the public have shown to care about democracy, including how their vote translates into government. They care about issues such as immigration and don’t want to be simply fobbed off with a smile. They care about getting some answers instead of endless waffle. I hope the politics of charm of the Labour years has been tempered by today’s need for substance. It is time for politics to grow up.

Election 2010: why I’m a Liberal Democrat

The political rhetoric of this election offers very little hope and courage. Cameron and Brown, in particular, have only votes in mind, not politics. Their words are uninspired and uninspiring. They only reaffirm our fears instead of overcoming them. It is not our society that is broken but our politics.

Of course, I shall not be voting because, not being a British citizen, I'm not entitled to vote (notwithstanding the fact that I've been here for donkeys years, pay taxes and represent people!). If I could, I would vote Liberal Democrat. Not because it's 'my' party, but because so far they have been the party defending rights and liberties, democracy at the local, national and European level.

We take liberal democracy for granted. Yet, as a shadow of xenophobia, selfishness and fear spreads over all of Europe, it is imperative that we stand for our core values and for a better world. This makes me a Liberal Democrat.

In 1968, following Dr. Martin Luther King’s death, Robert Kennedy didn’t shy away from addressing the crowd in Indianapolis. He didn’t hide nor did he blame anyone. He acknowledged that there will always be violence, division and hatred. He also appealed to the better part of people.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

Election 2010: Immigration

Countries can control immigration as much as they can control an ash cloud. If the wind is in favour, meaning there aren’t any jobs, migrants will go somewhere else. I’m not sure this is an enviable position to be in. The level of immigration is generally an indicator of economic growth. Britain has been blessed with skilled immigrants, and this has been key to economic success; yet nobody has the courage to say this.

It’s not all good, of course. There are certainly problems associated with immigration, such as race for jobs, crime, and, more rarely, cultural clashes. Unemployment is on the rise, but it’s mobility which helps economic development, not protectionism. The US economy has always relied on internal (and external) immigration. The government should help training and re-training people, but also aid internal and external mobility. It is worth remembering that it is not immigrants who steal ‘British jobs’, but manufactures that move, almost overnight, to Eastern Europe, China, India, Brazil, taking away thousands of jobs. I suppose it’s easier to see the enemy in someone who looks ‘different’.

Immigration can also foster crime, which is mostly the result of trafficking and immigrants finding difficult to have a legal permit to live and work in the UK.
People are bought and sold; or pay a lot of money for a chance in another country; or they are exploited for their hard labour with hardly any pay. The solution is not in trying to stop immigration but in making it efficient and legal. Complicated systems only mean more illegal immigration. Politicians want to keep the numbers down forgetting that we are talking about people not goods.

The whole game of ‘how many’ and ‘what kind of immigrant’ is nauseating. I suppose I wouldn’t get any points. I’m not a nurse or a doctor, a teacher or a plumber. I have a ‘different’ religion, speak another language and I’m yet again at University trying to figure out what I’ll do ‘when I grow up’. I’m very liberal when it comes to immigration because I think it’s good for the economy, because it challenges the ‘host culture’ into redefining itself and looking at its core values, and because it’s human beings we’re talking about.

The media are keen on seeing cultural clashes everywhere and make the flawed link with immigration. The multiple cultures which meet, overlap and, at times, clash in the ‘public sphere’ happen in every generation and help us define ourselves. It is important that they do not degenerate into violence, but that there’s frank exchange of views. Liberal democracy depends on the accommodation of diversity; otherwise it descends into the imposition of the interests and views of a selected few.

Yet, the political rhetoric on immigration is always about keeping numbers down. There's no uplifting tone talking about making the UK and Europe stronger and more diverse. Immigration is a challenge. It is also an opportunity to be a place where everybody has a chance to a decent life regardless of where they are coming from, their religion, sex, age, disability etc. It is our opportunity to rise up to the image of democracy to which we aspire.

Election 2010: Human Rights

The Tories’ love affair with the ruthless and obtuse right-wing press has led them to the crazy idea of dumping the Human Rights Act (1998). The Human Rights Act enabled law courts in the UK to ensure human rights are respected without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights. The Act was a fundamental step in constitutional reform in the UK protecting citizens’ rights and liberties rather than leaving it to the benevolence of the state.

I suppose Cameron taps into that romantic belief that Britain has always been and will always be a liberal country, and that this liberalism is preserved by Parliament. This only shows crass ignorance of the past and the present and bewildering naivety. Even Dicey, who was the great advocate of parliamentary primacy, recognised that a written constitution and Bill of Rights would have been essential to prevent an elected dictatorship. Labour have passed draconian legislation counting on their majority. Remember the Lords trying to stop the anti-terrorism act in 2005?

No country has a liberal DNA. That’s why constitutions and checks and balances are so important. They are a very recent thing. They are the result of hundreds of years of oppression, of absolute power, of wars. Our conception of freedom and rights has matured over a long period of time and it’s still developing. The Human Rights Act (1998) comes from the European Convention of Human Rights (1950), which comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the human response to the many millions who died in WWII and the horrific acts perpetrated in the name of the nation. Those rights cost us the lives of millions. Did they really die in vain?

Election 2010: The 'national interest'

There’s no point in being virtuous on your own. There's no point in wishing to be on our own. We’re connected to one another, across the globe, more than ever before and I raise my glass to that. The right-wing press mantra that ‘all legislation comes from Brussels’ fails to understand the reality of Europe and of member states. Alas, aside from the Lib Dems, both the Tories and Labour have sided more with the narrow-minded views of a certain press than with the interest of citizens.

Across Europe, national governments have traditionally fought against each other to favour big businesses in their territory with no regard for the rights and interest of their citizens. The European Court of Justice found itself deciding against national governments to protect the citizens of those governments. With businesses being transnational, multinational or, simply, located in tax havens, co-operation with European partners is in everybody’s interest. More importantly, issues such as immigration, climate, transports and tax avoiodance, to name a few, can only be tackled through cross-boundaries rules and co-operation.

Last year’s financial meltdown should have been a powerful call for co-ordinated action across Europe giving us a platform on the international arena. Single European countries cannot ensure any protection and cannot call themselves out of the game. The crisis in Greece makes financial transparency across Europe imperative. It also calls for markets to be regulated to prevent ‘vulture ventures’ against national debts, as we’re seeing in Greece. It’s not that by being outside the eurozone, we’re safe and dry. Remember Black Wednesday?

Yet, while Obama is busy tightening the rules across the pond, European leaders squabble and retreat to their national nests. The rhetoric of the 'national interest' is a smoke-screen behind which lies fear and ignorance. The real national interest lies in fair and transparent rules, not in protectionism. An enlightened leader should understand that the markets need tightening and that auditing of European member states would prevent crises such as that of Greece. Prime Ministers tend to think that they have a democratic mandate to do whatever they want. They confuse their party's line with what the people want. However, the interest of people in the UK or Italy are pretty similar. Pitting countries against each other only damages European citizens.

The European Parliament is the only democratically elected international body. It is where European citizens can make their voice heard. Alas, on today's political scene there are no De Gasperi, Schuman or Adenauer, only petty rivalries, inflated egos and hopeless incompetence. It is our democracy they are playing with under the pretense of working for 'the national interest'. This game of undermining Europe only means dwarfing Europe on the international scene where China, India and Brazil are growing in importance by the day. Keeping away from ‘Europe’ means keeping away from the place where the citizens' interest can be furthered. We are not safer outside, only ‘on our own’.

Election 2010: Greed

There appears to be a general election, so I thought I’d join the mountain of information, misinformation and propaganda clogging up the media. I find a lot to dislike in most policies from all parties. Mind you, policies are at best a suggestion, rather than a programme, bearing no resemblance to the ‘finished product’ of implementation. Ideology having been long defunct, it is rhetoric that tells us more about a party than anything else.

Gordon is bitter, which means he's struggling to be positive and defend Labour's record in government. Clegg has been impersonating Obama more credibly than Cameron. The rhetoric is that of change, but with such an unfair electoral system, it’s difficult to believe change is possible without a hung Parliament. Cameron has lost his 'compassion' and, aside from trying clumsily to look like Obama, the only idea that comes across is that of a 'small government' and Britain keeping away from the rest of the world.

But there’s something much more problematic in this election’s rhetoric, which is more evident in the Tories’ narrative. It is an understanding of the world and Britain’s place in it grounded on dogmatism, ignorance, and fear.

The dogma of a smaller government

Government needs to be streamlined, but this should start at the central level rather than the local one, which has already been vexed in recent years. I doubt the Tories (or whoever) are prepared to face another winter of discontent and really cut central government, although the debt won’t go down on its own. Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ is fine (I was advocating it with the Lib Dems long ago!), but it is nothing new. It has already been done by the Labour government, albeit often from a top-down approach. Reducing government needs to be done with a strategy in mind, not dogma. The key to the ‘Big Society’ is in local government acting as co-ordinator rather than main deliverer of public services. The private and third sectors can deliver good public services, but this requires effective regulation and transparency. Profit making should not trump upon the need of vulnerable people and the rights of service users. I shiver thinking of the privatisation of the railways. Will they do better this time?

An ignorant economy

Politicians are on the dock and rightly so for their disconnection from the population. They have been unfairly bundled up with the bankers, which will make regulation of markets hard to achieve. The problem with the markets lies in the lack of transparency and the sheer chutzpah of many in the sector selling rubbish products to clients whilst betting against them. It takes gutsy politicians to put in place sound controls.

Both Labour and the Tories prefer watching from afar thinking of their back garden and don’t realise that in finance it’s one green or brown field. Alas, Merkel has recently shown the same small-mindedness. Instead of being honest with her electorate telling them that rescuing Greece from the sharks of the market is in everyone’s interest, she talked tough and undermined markets’ confidence.

‘National’ politicians need to gain a better grasp of the economy, which, alas, doesn’t stop at the border. Instead of being inward-looking and fearful, our countries’ leaders need to work together to keep in check speculative financiers’ callous greed and dodgy practices. Toward the end of his life, Adam Smith was tirelessly telling government to regulate the markets. The markets are not virtuous otherworldly creatures behaving rationally for the common good. They are made up by people, who have a tendency to act like predators.

… more on this later.