As an addendum to yesterday's blog I just want to add that although the British economy has not suffered post-Brexit referendum, as many (myself included) had thought, I wish to ponder briefly on the reasons for this in the light of the rising costs of leaving the EU as I detailed yesterday. Whilst it's not a bad thing that the Bank of England has upgraded Britain's growth forecast for next year (from 1.2 to 2%, with EU Commission following suit) I do think it has the unfortunate side effect of fooling the nation into thinking that (Phew!) 'it's all going to be ok!' 'The sky won't fall in' and 'we will survive after all!'
Well yes, Britain will survive, of that there is no doubt! But in what form long term? Realistically, what are the prospects?
Perhaps the first thing to say is that I'm not an economist or a politician. I'm a layman; an interested layman but nonetheless still just a layman. But I think that this optimism is somewhat misguided and that, despite the upgraded forecasts, I believe the powers that be are sitting there, fingers crossed and hoping that, in the end, it will all turn out fine. However, I think this post-referendum mini-boom, for want of a better expression, is a merely a bubble that is just waiting to burst.
Let me explain.
Since June 23rd the value of Sterling has dropped significantly so allowing UK exports to be more competitive and, as one might expect, many companies are reporting increased sales and business as a consequence. The problem is that the EU receives by far the biggest share of UK exports (when compared to any other trading bloc: 44% in 2015) and I predict (figures are not yet available) that 2016 will see that share rise substantially, and therein lies the problem. Once Brexit is done what happens to those exports? To those companies? As I detailed yesterday the chances of the UK staying in the single market are hopelessly slim and it cannot be expected that deals from outside the EU with the rest of the world will come anywhere near replacing that massive proportion of UK trade. Thus, the bubble bursts, does it not?
The WEF predicts that the UK will drop out of the G8 by 2030 to become the 10th largest economy in the world (from 5th in 2015), but that (although it doesn't specify so) is if the UK remains as the UK. I firmly believe, as does Tony Blair (see his speech to Open Britain last Thursday), that Brexit facilitates the chances of Scotland breaking up the union. If this does happen then the UK will not exist anymore. The 12th biggest economy in the EU (Scotland) and the 2nd biggest in the UK will be out on their own, as will England, Wales and NI. England (or more pertinently) the UK will go from being a group of nations punching well above their weight to relative flyweights almost overnight. Where the UK was once a world power both Scotland (by association with England) and England (as part of the UK) will become virtual non-entities the day after the union breaks up.
Call me stupid; call me naive, but it's just bloody daft to me that we have somehow contrived to get ourselves into this ridiculous situation.
Lord Kerr of Scotland, former British representative to the EU, speaking yesterday in the Brexit debate in the House of Lords, said that he believes Article 50, once triggered, is not irrevocable; that the process could be stopped, if we so wished, and 'there would be nothing the EU could do about it.'
I sincerely hope that before we consign the UK to the bin of economic obscurity that commonsense prevails. If it looks likely that the deal we would get from the EU is a stinker (and that does seem more and more likely) then I do believe it should be brought back to parliament and indeed, to the people themselves, for us to say 'yea' or 'nay' to said deal.
And if that means revoking Article 50 at a late stage then so be it. By then (2 years hence) elections will have taken place all over Europe and the EU will either be much stronger or more vulnerable depending (largely) on what has taken place in those elections. Either way, the EU needs massive reformation. It needs to be much more democratic, more accountable, more approachable, more open, in short, it needs to start functioning more like a true governing body rather than just being an unapproachable, faceless load of time wasting bureaucrats! It needs reforming from the bottom up, in a every aspect to be able to move forward and meet the challenges Europe faces in the 21st Century. Maybe a close run Brexit 'thing' is the push it needs to change, but change it must (however, the mechanics and specifics of that change are for another day).
But for me, and hopefully for the UK, a Brexit at any cost is NOT the way forward! This must be considered further and more carefully once the road has been explored. This is not undemocratic I believe, it is just commonsense!
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Singing the Brexit Blues! Tony Blair and the rising costs of leaving the EU.
Hi guys!
It's been a while since my last post....perhaps I've been suffering a bit of post-Brexit, post-Trump blues. Let's face it, as a Brit, living in a (relatively), largely democratic free West, our world has changed immeasurably in the last 9 months or so. Impending Brexit and all that that means for Britain, the British, for Europe, for our security, for our future, for our children's future, and the rise of Donald Trump with his extremist, nationalistic views are sending seismic waves around the globe, fostering and nurturing selfish, undemocratic, right-wing feelings that are divisive in the extreme and designed to undermine the democratic principles upon which we in the West have, over the centuries, built our nations!
For days after the June referendum I felt bereft, as if I'd lost a close friend or a family member. Maybe this seems like an over the top reaction to what is, after all, just a question of politics! And that may be true! Although the grief wasn't apparent in exactly the same way (as after a death), the feeling was certainly analogous. The problem is that Brexit is NOT just a question of politics. It has the potential to impact upon almost every aspect our lives from our health and health services to our military capabilities, from our ambient environment and climate to our employment and business prospects, from our education systems and the future of our schools, colleges and universities to our access to food resources, from our levels of influence around the globe to our everyday security....the list is endless and I feel I could go on all day.
I have just watched Tony Blair's speech to Open Britain (on BBC Parliament) that he gave on Thursday last and, whilst I couldn't agree with every word of his assessment of the situation, his message certainly struck a chord and I think he does have a point, and a bloody good point at that! In a nutshell, his message was this: we are better off in Europe and, despite the result of the referendum, it is not too late to stop Brexit. He insisted that it was not undemocratic to shout down the June 23rd result in favour of Brexit because 'we had been sold a house and were moving in without having seen it first'. A simple analogy perhaps, but the point was made.
Now that we can see the far shore does the grass really look any greener (my analogy)? Is Blair's new house any shinier, brighter, possessing of greater potential or not? I, along with Blair, would argue for the latter; that Britain's prospects appear significantly dimmed by a life outside of the EU.
He proposed a new cross party movement to tackle the issue, though the specifics were lacking somewhat, he suggested that it was the peoples right to change their mind on Brexit now the terms and costs of an exit from the EU are becoming more apparent. The prospects of a so-called 'hard Brexit' loom large, as does the possibility that (after the required 2 years of negotiation) we might exit the EU without any deal at all, something that may cost the UK economy ~£6bn a year in extra tariffs should WTO rules apply. And for all the furore created by the (ongoing) bill to trigger Article 50 and the proposed amendments therein, the plaintive cries of MP's wishing to have their say on how and what Brexit should like from a British perspective, everyone keeps forgetting one simple thing. Britain will be negotiating (largely) from point of weakness, certainly as regards membership of the single market economy, because quite simply it is not up to us; it will be decided by the EU, so that when Theresa May says that we will leave the single market she should be taken at her word. Asking for an amendment that insists for it to be otherwise is just naive and unrealistic. What's more Britain will be expected to pay a 'hefty' price for it's divorce from the EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker, which may be upwards of 60bn Euros!
Even if, after some (what would be) remarkable negotiating on part of the UK's team, some sort of deal is in place in time, it will not be a comprehensive one! It will at best, be a bit part deal that only covers trade in some of the more financially lucrative areas, such as the motor trade in which both the UK and the EU have vested interests. However, it should be noted that despite what the leave campaigners said (during the lead up to June 23rd) and still say today, German car manufacturers for one, have strongly intimated that they are willing to take the hit (in terms of added tariffs for trade with UK) in order to preserve the single market for the countries that remain in the EU. Yet Theresa May insists that falling back on WTO tariffs is a far better deal than no deal at all (with the EU).
I would suggest that before negotiations are even begun, maybe even before Article 50 is triggered, that the various likely scenarios should be put to parliament and debated long and hard to avoid Britain doing the honourable English thing, and going for a Brexit at any cost that could bring the nation to it's knees! For me, the cost of being 'democratic' in this regard is way too high! I am sure that many who voted for Brexit did not envisage these horrendous possibilities, and there is no doubt, they are horrendous. Is it really worth all that Brexit means just to avoid having a few immigrants enter the country? I say 'no'!
However, there would those who would insist that we would more than make up for the losses through trade with countries outside of Europe. However, this again is a misnomer. Monique Ebell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, says the cost of Brexit could be as much as 30% long-term reduction in trade (if WTO rules apply) whereas the likely up side (from new non-EU trade deals) is not projected to exceed 5%.
But Donald Trump has said Brexit is a good thing and he promises a rapid and a good deal for the UK I hear you say! And I would say that Trump, whatever one may think of him (and I don't think a whole lot), has shown himself to be a man who, for all his bluster and controversy, is trying to stick to his campaign promises. And what was his biggest promise? That's right....America first! Sure, he'll give Britain a deal, but it will be a one-sided affair because he knows that if he waits till Brexit is done (and he must, as must we) then we will be on knees and willing to accept just about anything that is offered. He is first and foremost a businessman, this is why he wants to destabilise, even break the EU, because, to use a military analogy, he wants to divide and conquer. Why deal with a strong EU when he can push the right buttons and deal with France, Germany, Britain, etc on a far stronger footing? Trump isn't interested in doing a good deal for Britain, only for the US because that's his job.
Miriam Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, who is an international lawyer and is likely to be part of the British negotiating team, insists that the negotiations are going to be horribly complex and may take up to 10 years to complete (which could cost more than £60bn in extra tariffs- see above), a time frame that dwarfs the 2 year limit imposed by the triggering of Article 50. She has talked about how Britain has only 25 negotiators (a number that Rod Abbott, former director of WTO says is minimum number for making a deal with a small nation, e.g. Vietnam & many more needed for larger deals) skilled enough to deal with the complex discussions that will arise, and how that figure is woefully inadequate (she suggests 500 skilled negotiators would be more apt; Professor Jim Rollo of the University of Sussex says 900 is a more likely scenario) and that Britain is always likely to get the worst of any deal just because we are small when compared to the EU as a whole. And that is without the added pressures of trying to tie up deals with nations outside of the EU (the US, Australia, etc) and Gonzalez even goes as far as suggesting that it is just not possible for the UK to complete any of these negotiations at the current time ....the deal many want from Brexit simply can't be done given the limited time available, which means that the uncertainty that clouds Britain's near future is likely to persist for much longer, perhaps decades longer, than what has been promised and anticipated.
As Blair reiterated one huge effect of Brexit has been the divisions it has wrought in the UK; young against the old, North against South, Scotland against England. For me, in the immediate aftermath of the vote one statistic that stood out more than any other was the huge difference in attitude towards Europe between the over 65's and the under 25's. What irked me about this at the time was that the vast majority of those over 65 who voted to leave have taken all the benefits that the EU has conferred upon our society, and now out of an (irrational?) fear of immigrants, are willing to consign the wishes of our young to a more insular, insecure financial future. Now, after we know much more that annoyance remains every bit as real to me now as it was then. Now that we know the difficulties that all these negotiations will bring, the time that will be needed it becomes even more apparent that it won't be those over 65's who will pay the price, it will be this years school leavers. The vast majority of those over 65 will be dead (sad but true) before negotiations will be completed, yet my son, who was 6 months too young to vote (at the time, and incidentally built, designed and launched the most downloaded independent app on iTunes that gave daily updates on the Brexit debates) will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his (hopefully) long life.
Blair laid the blame for Brexit squarely on the shoulders of his 'debilitated' former Labour Party. That Corbyn was weak during the referendum campaign is no secret, but I would argue the case that David Cameron's misreading of the situation (with regard to immigration) and the blatant lies told by the 'Brexiteers' (the extra £350m for the NHS, for example) should also take their fair share of the blame. But apportioning the blame so long after the horse has bolted seems like a redundant argument, when perhaps the focus should now be more on what happens next rather than what has already passed.
And what of Europe if, and when, we do leave the EU? Will it be stronger or could Brexit be the catalyst for the firing of the European dream? We have witnessed the rise of right wing nationalist, protectionist politicians right across Europe. With both French and German elections coming later this year we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of Europe as we have known for the past few decades. Marine Le Pen is campaigning, as Cameron did before, on the promise of an 'in/out referendum' should she win the election. This is very worrying, if not solely from a political standpoint, then surely from a security one. Putin's Russia is waiting in the wings, rattling its' sabre, waiting to pounce upon a weakened Europe, whether it be economically or militarily, and that cannot be a good thing,
Now is the time that Europe should be pulling together, not ripping itself apart. The EU is far from a perfect institution, we all know that. But what if we re-thought our situation and went back to Europe with another, separate deal, one that says Brexit is not inevitable if the EU can reform; make itself into the properly democratic, fully answerable union that it was intended to be, then we might, we just might, find a way out of the woods that is good for everyone, good for all the member nations and its' peoples, good for the environment, good for our security, even good for the refugees that have perhaps been the over-riding cause of much of the angst. Can we do this?
As a great man once said, "Yes, we can!"
It's been a while since my last post....perhaps I've been suffering a bit of post-Brexit, post-Trump blues. Let's face it, as a Brit, living in a (relatively), largely democratic free West, our world has changed immeasurably in the last 9 months or so. Impending Brexit and all that that means for Britain, the British, for Europe, for our security, for our future, for our children's future, and the rise of Donald Trump with his extremist, nationalistic views are sending seismic waves around the globe, fostering and nurturing selfish, undemocratic, right-wing feelings that are divisive in the extreme and designed to undermine the democratic principles upon which we in the West have, over the centuries, built our nations!
For days after the June referendum I felt bereft, as if I'd lost a close friend or a family member. Maybe this seems like an over the top reaction to what is, after all, just a question of politics! And that may be true! Although the grief wasn't apparent in exactly the same way (as after a death), the feeling was certainly analogous. The problem is that Brexit is NOT just a question of politics. It has the potential to impact upon almost every aspect our lives from our health and health services to our military capabilities, from our ambient environment and climate to our employment and business prospects, from our education systems and the future of our schools, colleges and universities to our access to food resources, from our levels of influence around the globe to our everyday security....the list is endless and I feel I could go on all day.
I have just watched Tony Blair's speech to Open Britain (on BBC Parliament) that he gave on Thursday last and, whilst I couldn't agree with every word of his assessment of the situation, his message certainly struck a chord and I think he does have a point, and a bloody good point at that! In a nutshell, his message was this: we are better off in Europe and, despite the result of the referendum, it is not too late to stop Brexit. He insisted that it was not undemocratic to shout down the June 23rd result in favour of Brexit because 'we had been sold a house and were moving in without having seen it first'. A simple analogy perhaps, but the point was made.
Now that we can see the far shore does the grass really look any greener (my analogy)? Is Blair's new house any shinier, brighter, possessing of greater potential or not? I, along with Blair, would argue for the latter; that Britain's prospects appear significantly dimmed by a life outside of the EU.
He proposed a new cross party movement to tackle the issue, though the specifics were lacking somewhat, he suggested that it was the peoples right to change their mind on Brexit now the terms and costs of an exit from the EU are becoming more apparent. The prospects of a so-called 'hard Brexit' loom large, as does the possibility that (after the required 2 years of negotiation) we might exit the EU without any deal at all, something that may cost the UK economy ~£6bn a year in extra tariffs should WTO rules apply. And for all the furore created by the (ongoing) bill to trigger Article 50 and the proposed amendments therein, the plaintive cries of MP's wishing to have their say on how and what Brexit should like from a British perspective, everyone keeps forgetting one simple thing. Britain will be negotiating (largely) from point of weakness, certainly as regards membership of the single market economy, because quite simply it is not up to us; it will be decided by the EU, so that when Theresa May says that we will leave the single market she should be taken at her word. Asking for an amendment that insists for it to be otherwise is just naive and unrealistic. What's more Britain will be expected to pay a 'hefty' price for it's divorce from the EU, says Jean-Claude Juncker, which may be upwards of 60bn Euros!
Even if, after some (what would be) remarkable negotiating on part of the UK's team, some sort of deal is in place in time, it will not be a comprehensive one! It will at best, be a bit part deal that only covers trade in some of the more financially lucrative areas, such as the motor trade in which both the UK and the EU have vested interests. However, it should be noted that despite what the leave campaigners said (during the lead up to June 23rd) and still say today, German car manufacturers for one, have strongly intimated that they are willing to take the hit (in terms of added tariffs for trade with UK) in order to preserve the single market for the countries that remain in the EU. Yet Theresa May insists that falling back on WTO tariffs is a far better deal than no deal at all (with the EU).
I would suggest that before negotiations are even begun, maybe even before Article 50 is triggered, that the various likely scenarios should be put to parliament and debated long and hard to avoid Britain doing the honourable English thing, and going for a Brexit at any cost that could bring the nation to it's knees! For me, the cost of being 'democratic' in this regard is way too high! I am sure that many who voted for Brexit did not envisage these horrendous possibilities, and there is no doubt, they are horrendous. Is it really worth all that Brexit means just to avoid having a few immigrants enter the country? I say 'no'!
However, there would those who would insist that we would more than make up for the losses through trade with countries outside of Europe. However, this again is a misnomer. Monique Ebell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, says the cost of Brexit could be as much as 30% long-term reduction in trade (if WTO rules apply) whereas the likely up side (from new non-EU trade deals) is not projected to exceed 5%.
But Donald Trump has said Brexit is a good thing and he promises a rapid and a good deal for the UK I hear you say! And I would say that Trump, whatever one may think of him (and I don't think a whole lot), has shown himself to be a man who, for all his bluster and controversy, is trying to stick to his campaign promises. And what was his biggest promise? That's right....America first! Sure, he'll give Britain a deal, but it will be a one-sided affair because he knows that if he waits till Brexit is done (and he must, as must we) then we will be on knees and willing to accept just about anything that is offered. He is first and foremost a businessman, this is why he wants to destabilise, even break the EU, because, to use a military analogy, he wants to divide and conquer. Why deal with a strong EU when he can push the right buttons and deal with France, Germany, Britain, etc on a far stronger footing? Trump isn't interested in doing a good deal for Britain, only for the US because that's his job.
Miriam Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, who is an international lawyer and is likely to be part of the British negotiating team, insists that the negotiations are going to be horribly complex and may take up to 10 years to complete (which could cost more than £60bn in extra tariffs- see above), a time frame that dwarfs the 2 year limit imposed by the triggering of Article 50. She has talked about how Britain has only 25 negotiators (a number that Rod Abbott, former director of WTO says is minimum number for making a deal with a small nation, e.g. Vietnam & many more needed for larger deals) skilled enough to deal with the complex discussions that will arise, and how that figure is woefully inadequate (she suggests 500 skilled negotiators would be more apt; Professor Jim Rollo of the University of Sussex says 900 is a more likely scenario) and that Britain is always likely to get the worst of any deal just because we are small when compared to the EU as a whole. And that is without the added pressures of trying to tie up deals with nations outside of the EU (the US, Australia, etc) and Gonzalez even goes as far as suggesting that it is just not possible for the UK to complete any of these negotiations at the current time ....the deal many want from Brexit simply can't be done given the limited time available, which means that the uncertainty that clouds Britain's near future is likely to persist for much longer, perhaps decades longer, than what has been promised and anticipated.
As Blair reiterated one huge effect of Brexit has been the divisions it has wrought in the UK; young against the old, North against South, Scotland against England. For me, in the immediate aftermath of the vote one statistic that stood out more than any other was the huge difference in attitude towards Europe between the over 65's and the under 25's. What irked me about this at the time was that the vast majority of those over 65 who voted to leave have taken all the benefits that the EU has conferred upon our society, and now out of an (irrational?) fear of immigrants, are willing to consign the wishes of our young to a more insular, insecure financial future. Now, after we know much more that annoyance remains every bit as real to me now as it was then. Now that we know the difficulties that all these negotiations will bring, the time that will be needed it becomes even more apparent that it won't be those over 65's who will pay the price, it will be this years school leavers. The vast majority of those over 65 will be dead (sad but true) before negotiations will be completed, yet my son, who was 6 months too young to vote (at the time, and incidentally built, designed and launched the most downloaded independent app on iTunes that gave daily updates on the Brexit debates) will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his (hopefully) long life.
Blair laid the blame for Brexit squarely on the shoulders of his 'debilitated' former Labour Party. That Corbyn was weak during the referendum campaign is no secret, but I would argue the case that David Cameron's misreading of the situation (with regard to immigration) and the blatant lies told by the 'Brexiteers' (the extra £350m for the NHS, for example) should also take their fair share of the blame. But apportioning the blame so long after the horse has bolted seems like a redundant argument, when perhaps the focus should now be more on what happens next rather than what has already passed.
And what of Europe if, and when, we do leave the EU? Will it be stronger or could Brexit be the catalyst for the firing of the European dream? We have witnessed the rise of right wing nationalist, protectionist politicians right across Europe. With both French and German elections coming later this year we could well be seeing the beginning of the end of Europe as we have known for the past few decades. Marine Le Pen is campaigning, as Cameron did before, on the promise of an 'in/out referendum' should she win the election. This is very worrying, if not solely from a political standpoint, then surely from a security one. Putin's Russia is waiting in the wings, rattling its' sabre, waiting to pounce upon a weakened Europe, whether it be economically or militarily, and that cannot be a good thing,
Now is the time that Europe should be pulling together, not ripping itself apart. The EU is far from a perfect institution, we all know that. But what if we re-thought our situation and went back to Europe with another, separate deal, one that says Brexit is not inevitable if the EU can reform; make itself into the properly democratic, fully answerable union that it was intended to be, then we might, we just might, find a way out of the woods that is good for everyone, good for all the member nations and its' peoples, good for the environment, good for our security, even good for the refugees that have perhaps been the over-riding cause of much of the angst. Can we do this?
As a great man once said, "Yes, we can!"
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Obama's Legacy? A Trump Presidency that could break the planet!
Sitting with friends and family on New Years Eve 1999 having a good time & toasting the good times to come in the 21st Century, if someone had told me what changes would ring during the first two decades of this bold new venture I would not have believed them. In fact I probably would have laughed! Back then I was (mistakenly?) full of hope and optimism. I had just turned 40, so I couldn't exactly call it the folly of youth, but from where I sit today that's certainly what it feels like right now.
First we had 9/11, then George 'Dubya' and the War on Terror, the Iraqi insurgency and subsequent rise of ISIS, all this and we were barely halfway through the first decade! Then 8 short years ago hope was rekindled in the form of Barack Obama and I think many of us thought that we (the human race, that is) had perhaps turned a corner. If America can vote in a black President - a black President - then maybe all wasn't lost despite the horrors we were witnessing on our TV screens and increasingly on our mobiles. I remember how I cried watching Obama give his acceptance speech, and then shortly afterwards his inaugural address! It would all be okay! The human race has finally come to it's senses - the most powerful man in the world was someone to whom we could relate to, someone who (after reading his books) understood the realities of everyday life, someone who genuinely seemed like a good guy!
But it was a false dawn! We'd all been hoodwinked, not by Obama, but by the American political system. Any good Obama tried to do was stymied by a jealous and resentful Republican Congress and we, (the people) as time passed, began to see how the President himself wielded very little direct power in order to fulfil his pledges. Without the backing of the representatives in the Congress nothing it seemed was possible. Across the States we now see the direct result of that Republican policy of nullification; disenchantment, disenfranchisement and a population that has turned it's head away from the Political mid-line to face, more or less directly, to the right.
The most shocking and nasty election campaign that I can remember has now left us with the wholly divisive President Trump, a damning indictment on the legacy of Barack Obama (I am very sad to say). In the end for Obama, being a nice, good guy just didn't get the job done it seems, and so America turned away from warmth of Obama's fire to let in the cold chill and frosty ideas of Donald Trump and I, for one, am scared. Scared, not just for America and what it now will mean to be an American in the wider context of the rest of the world (who I can bet are largely shaking their heads in disbelief), but scared for the planet as a whole. If Trump, for example, manages to rip up the Paris accord as he has pledged to do, climate change will undoubtedly speed up. If the world's biggest polluter turns it's back on the overwhelming scientific evidence and opts out then we really are a doomed race, with perhaps the saddest part being that we will doom many innocent species to the dustbin of extinction in our wake. Other nations will follow where America goes and before we know it there won't be any coral reefs to dive on; hurricanes and typhoons will be get stronger and stronger until the annual destruction and despair they bring overwhelms us; localised patterns of drought and flooding will be expounded and multiplied until large parts of our planet become uninhabitable. And so on....! Of course, we won't see these effects during Trump's Presidency or possibly even during his lifetime, but his children will; our children will, because we are right now on a razors edge climatically and all it will take is one little push in the wrong direction to set us all down the path of no return. This isn't just scary, it's downright criminal, but it's what America has likely done for us all yesterday. Bye bye world as we know it!
And that's just one aspect of the potential disasters that may well unfold over the next 4 years. Don't even start me on the Russian expansion programme that (I've no doubt) Putin will have in mind as Trump crumbles the NATO alliance and opens us all up the possibilities of a second Cold War (and possibly even more) that promises to be a whole lot warmer than the first! Or how his 'straight talking' foreign policies will alienate every Muslim nation and lead to a putative rise in global terrorism. Or how his ideas on immigration will isolate America, as well as making Americans persona non grata outside of the States.
Really, I could go on all day, but you know all the arguments. The upshot is that the world changed today and, in my opinion, not for the better! Now we all just have to stand back, spectate and hope against hope that the worst doesn't happen.
Fingers crossed for us all!
First we had 9/11, then George 'Dubya' and the War on Terror, the Iraqi insurgency and subsequent rise of ISIS, all this and we were barely halfway through the first decade! Then 8 short years ago hope was rekindled in the form of Barack Obama and I think many of us thought that we (the human race, that is) had perhaps turned a corner. If America can vote in a black President - a black President - then maybe all wasn't lost despite the horrors we were witnessing on our TV screens and increasingly on our mobiles. I remember how I cried watching Obama give his acceptance speech, and then shortly afterwards his inaugural address! It would all be okay! The human race has finally come to it's senses - the most powerful man in the world was someone to whom we could relate to, someone who (after reading his books) understood the realities of everyday life, someone who genuinely seemed like a good guy!
But it was a false dawn! We'd all been hoodwinked, not by Obama, but by the American political system. Any good Obama tried to do was stymied by a jealous and resentful Republican Congress and we, (the people) as time passed, began to see how the President himself wielded very little direct power in order to fulfil his pledges. Without the backing of the representatives in the Congress nothing it seemed was possible. Across the States we now see the direct result of that Republican policy of nullification; disenchantment, disenfranchisement and a population that has turned it's head away from the Political mid-line to face, more or less directly, to the right.
The most shocking and nasty election campaign that I can remember has now left us with the wholly divisive President Trump, a damning indictment on the legacy of Barack Obama (I am very sad to say). In the end for Obama, being a nice, good guy just didn't get the job done it seems, and so America turned away from warmth of Obama's fire to let in the cold chill and frosty ideas of Donald Trump and I, for one, am scared. Scared, not just for America and what it now will mean to be an American in the wider context of the rest of the world (who I can bet are largely shaking their heads in disbelief), but scared for the planet as a whole. If Trump, for example, manages to rip up the Paris accord as he has pledged to do, climate change will undoubtedly speed up. If the world's biggest polluter turns it's back on the overwhelming scientific evidence and opts out then we really are a doomed race, with perhaps the saddest part being that we will doom many innocent species to the dustbin of extinction in our wake. Other nations will follow where America goes and before we know it there won't be any coral reefs to dive on; hurricanes and typhoons will be get stronger and stronger until the annual destruction and despair they bring overwhelms us; localised patterns of drought and flooding will be expounded and multiplied until large parts of our planet become uninhabitable. And so on....! Of course, we won't see these effects during Trump's Presidency or possibly even during his lifetime, but his children will; our children will, because we are right now on a razors edge climatically and all it will take is one little push in the wrong direction to set us all down the path of no return. This isn't just scary, it's downright criminal, but it's what America has likely done for us all yesterday. Bye bye world as we know it!
And that's just one aspect of the potential disasters that may well unfold over the next 4 years. Don't even start me on the Russian expansion programme that (I've no doubt) Putin will have in mind as Trump crumbles the NATO alliance and opens us all up the possibilities of a second Cold War (and possibly even more) that promises to be a whole lot warmer than the first! Or how his 'straight talking' foreign policies will alienate every Muslim nation and lead to a putative rise in global terrorism. Or how his ideas on immigration will isolate America, as well as making Americans persona non grata outside of the States.
Really, I could go on all day, but you know all the arguments. The upshot is that the world changed today and, in my opinion, not for the better! Now we all just have to stand back, spectate and hope against hope that the worst doesn't happen.
Fingers crossed for us all!
Sunday, 26 June 2016
I had a Brexit dream...!
I went to bed Friday evening, post-Brexit, feeling deflated, as if I’d lost part of myself somewhere in that divisive referendum. It was a hot night and as I tossed and turned trying to cede to sleep and failing dismally the same thoughts of doom and gloom kept going round and round in my head, riding a carousel of disaster called the Sinking British Ship, and with each tired revolution my eyes ached more and my heart sank lower. “The young, the young! What about the young?” was the mournful cry lurching out of the sweaty darkness in a voice that grew weaker with every cry, as if the wailing vocal chords were being sliced through one at a time until they could be heard no more.
Three o’clock, then four, and still my heart sank until I felt the breeze on my face cooling me down. I was moving, not fast at first, but it was me that was moving through the air I realised, not the air moving over me. Perhaps I was on my bike. It seemed plausible. The rush of air over my face now was strong enough that I couldn’t hear anything else but the roar of wind resistance as I moved through the air at gathering speed. I reached up and felt for my helmet but it wasn’t there! Just to be sure I looked down at my feet expecting to see my cycling cleats locked into my machine but instead I saw nothing.
My feet were there; my legs too, as was the constant deafening rush of air filling my ears. I was moving but I wasn’t on my bike. I was flying and my feet were brushing clouds of nothingness as I looked around to see where I was to try and gain some perspective. I seemed to be flying through sheer force of will. I wanted to, so I was. If I wanted more speed I just thought it and there it was; a sort of cerebraccelerator. I wasn’t sure where I was but there was no sense of fear or panic. There were trees below me now and rolling landscape over which I soared with no effort at all.
I became aware that I was asleep, finally lost in my dreams, the overbearing tiredness of earlier and the feelings of despair were no more; they had been blown away. I had outstripped them through sheer speed. I was flying, not like Superman by using my strength against the irresistible force of gravity, but by simply knowing that I could. I was dreaming and I knew it and anything was possible.
I banked slightly to the right and as I slowed down I could discern what appeared to be towers with a shimmering globe rising above swirling mists. Enjoying the free-flowing control my subconscious had given me over my movements I decided to investigate and as I came closer the mists lifted and flying buttresses abutting an imposing edifice reared up. This was a place I knew by sight though I had never visited it in my waking hours.
The Hagia Sofia is magnificent. I had pawed over images of it a thousand times and knew it’s shape and contours well; now it seemed I was to know how it felt to stand under the great dome. There was the glittering Bosphorus and to my left lay the Sea of Marmara, while directly below me sat Acropolis point, the very tip of the Golden Horn, and I spied the impressive barricade of the Theodosian wall lining the Horn like a huge, heavy necklace. A gap in the wall indicated the Eugenius gate from where the Byzantines had strung the great chain intended to keep out the ships of the marauding Ottomans of Mehmet’s army during the great siege. Now I knew not only where I was, but also when. Straining my eyes I looked now to my right for the ends of Europe and the Genoese enclave of Galata but it seemed even my subconscious had limits and it was nowhere to be seen.
 |
| The Hagia Sofia, Istanbul |
Without thinking about it I knew it was 1453, the year the crumbling Byzantine empire was put to the sword though as I fluttered down, flying just above the florid rooftops of indiscernible houses, I could see no signs of violence. The sound of a muezzin calling the faithful to prayer hung in the air like a mystical magnet pulling me down to earth.
I landed softly unaware whether I was invisible or just another man among the many. I was somehow beneath the great dome now, the huge, graceful columns and porticoed galleries soared above me, giant discs of azur blue wrought with gold calligraphy detailing Koranic verses hung conspicuously from the first gallery like incongruous badges on a Janissary’s chest. All around me men in traditional Arab garb were talking in small groups in guttural tones that were incoherent to me. I remember wondering at the time if they were truly speaking Arabic or just some hotch-potch of my imagination.
I walked around, apparently unnoticed, peering into the dark corners of my subconscious, as if I were testing the depths of my fantasy. I wasn’t sure what, or who I was looking for, but I looked nonetheless and then sitting cross-legged in a dank recess sat a young man whose eye caught mine. His face was partially hidden beneath a cowl and it was dark but there remained something familiar, yet oddly distant in his look. I think I did a double take, aware for the first time that someone was looking back at me and as our eyes met again his features suddenly became clear. I smiled. I think I’d been looking for Mehmet, but maybe I had no clear image in my head of what he may look like, so instead I found Percy Jackson!
He gave me a conspiratorial grin then from beneath his cloak he pulled out a magic wand and holding it aloft he began chanting what I presumed to be a spell of some sort!
 |
| Percy Jackson! How did he get in my head? |
But hang on a minute! Even in my dream state I knew something wasn’t right. Harry Potter has a wand, not Percy Jackson, but try as I might I couldn’t remember what he had in it’s stead. Then a bolt of light shot from the wand and I followed it up high above my head. The domes and porticos had disappeared; so it seemed had the Hagia Sofia, because the beam of light was swallowed up by a woody canopy of giant trees that threw great fingers of timber across a night sky hundreds of feet above my head.
I looked about me wondering where all the Turks had gone and how I had missed sundown. Percy stood up and as he did men in black uniforms flew down out of the darkness on magic carpets, bren guns slung over their shoulders. I was having a great time and I think I began to laugh just as Percy bundled me over and the metallic ricochet of bullets sprayed all around me. Percy raised his wand again and another bolt of light shot out as one of the men on carpets vapourised, his machine gun falling at my feet.
I picked it up fully aware that I’d never held a gun of any description before, but it all seemed quite natural and far from being scared I think I was exhilarated. I fired, standing shoulder to shoulder with Percy Jackson as the black uniformed men, who I had assumed by now were bent with an evil intent, dropped like flies all about us.
All of a sudden I was aloft again, but this time riding high on some sort of flying banana boat. Percy was sitting in front of me, looking back over his shoulder and beaming like a Cheshire cat. I wanted to ask who those men were but before I had a chance he told me, “Right wingers!” he said, “Bloody Nazi’s!”
“Shit!” I said. “And who’s that?” I asked as I pointed to some more flighty figures zooming out of the sunlight above us. It was apparently daytime again and my dream was moving apace.
“I’m not sure!” said Percy, “Perhaps they’re Eurosceptics?”
“Brexiteers?” I asked.
“Think so! Have they got weapons?”
“No, no! I think they’re waving ballot papers!”
“Shit! I’m out!” And with that he faded away into the backwaters of my mind, leaving me alone on my flying sausage wondering where the hell I was headed. Paper planes made out of referendum ballot papers whizzed past my ears and around my head, sucking me down into a vortex of despair as I fell from the skies in a tempest of ‘remain’ votes that no longer flew.
 |
| Sunny boy! |
A gentle humming awoke me! My face was wet and my chest heavy. Sunny, my lovely pusscat was sitting across my neck, a living, breathing stole, and he was purring, hungry and licking my face!
“Sunny! You want brekky boy?”
He purred his agreement. I got up, yawning, still tired and knowing full well I hardly slept. The sun was just coming up, poking its’ orange brow above the horizon and as I set the kettle to boil I pondered the meaning or significance of my dream as Sunny gulped his fishy breakfast greedily at my feet.
Saturday, 11 June 2016
Why Donald Trump is so Dangerous for America and Americans.
I've got a big problem with Donald Trump & anyone who has followed any of my twitter posts to or about him will know this. On a personal level there is no particular animosity; my problem is that Trump has transcended the personal to become a public figure and therein lies my problem. Were he not running for the most powerful seat in World politics I wouldn't care what he said, but he is and so I do!
Now, as much as it might irk many Britons to admit it, the United States is the most powerful, influential nation on earth right now and, barring planetary catastrophes, will probably remain so for the rest of my, and probably your lifetime, so who is in the Oval Office has a bearing on most everyone's life in some way or other, no matter how strong or oblique that influence may be.
People, groups, institutions, even whole nations look to the US to lead the way; how America does things, any things, can be hugely influential, though I do believe that level of influence has fallen somewhat since the turn of the century, particularly since 9/11. Nevertheless, America remains, for good or bad, the most powerful and influential nation on earth.
It's not just that the US has the largest economy, though that obviously helps (the US extend their reach), America's media (in all it's forms) has an enormous, almost overriding influence on current and (near) future trends, be they political, financial or something more aesthetic and obscure like fashion, music, movies, even down to what we eat, even what we say. Most of the biggest corporations in the world are American (e.g. Google, Facebook, McDonalds) and their say in what and how we live our lives is huge, albeit often unseen and unrecognised. American's are by far the best at marketing, be that an idea, a concept, a product, a TV programme, a movie, a clothes chain, a coffee house, or even an individual. Witness the outpourings of grief around the world following the sad passing of Muhammad Ali, who was undoubtedly a great boxer and a great man, but did we see similar grief and recognition when Mother Teresa died? No, nothing like. So is Muhammad Ali more, or less great than Mother Teresa? That's not for me to say, but perhaps Ali's passing has brought forth such outpourings because he was American and because of that, one way or another, his heavily marketed life touched many people indirectly in so many ways, mine included, whereas that of Mother Teresa touched only the lives of the relatively few that she directly interacted with.
Now, I'm not saying anything against Ali - heaven forbid - he was one of my great heroes (see my tribute here), but do you think he would have gained all the accolades he did during his remarkable life had he been born in...say, Ivory Coast? Or Kenya? I don't think so! Ali became great by virtue of the influence he had over so many people, an influence that was relayed to us via American TV, American news, American documentaries and American books, all of which filtered down into our own news, documentaries and books so that in the end Ali became part of our culture, be that British, French, African, whatever. He became great because he was (wittingly or not) marketed by the American media system and so his story reached the whole planet in a way that if he'd been from Kenya, it would not have done.
So, given that America has such a strong say in our lives, the man (or woman) in charge of America should be of interest to all of us, since he/she has a say either directly or indirectly in the lives of the vast majority of the people on the planet. Thus when a man like Trump, running for the Presidency of this most influential of nations says the things he does and behaves the way that he does, it should be of import to us all. The things he says, the way he does things, the way he treats people, races or religious groups becomes something that each and every one of us should be taking notice of, simply because of the influence that America holds over us. So when Trump disparages individuals because of their racial heritage, or their religious beliefs or their (lack of?) economic standing people take notice and follow his lead, particularly in America, but this filters down to all of us eventually, wherever we are via social media, TV or through simple conversation. His thoughtless, heartless bullying of anyone who rankles him, and the language he uses in doing so becomes hugely influential and for many it normalises such treatment, making it everyday and acceptable - after all, if a budding President can call women 'pigs' then it must be okay to treat women like that, right? If a budding President can call all Mexicans murderers and drug dealers then surely they are and should be treated as such, right? If a budding President can suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from his country, then they must be and they should be regarded in that light, right?
But none of these things are okay, regardless of how true or untrue they may be. Nor is it okay to suggest that he would order US armed forces to kill every member of ISIS, including their families, despite the illegality of such. He gives no thought to the political consequences of such an action; the trampling of national sovereignties that would be needed in order to achieve such; the social consequences (in America and elsewhere) of ordering the murder of the citizens of other nations (who make up ISIS); the resultant psychological and social effects of such an order on the individuals within the US armed forces! But because a budding President says it's okay, then it must be okay, right? I can almost hear the clamour for such action amongst the gung-ho, NRA wielding sections of US society because Trump has deemed it acceptable and has made their wildest, flag waving, gun-toting fantasies a near reality.
And do know what, for the rest of us, it's bloody scary! The man himself is far from scary; he's more a parody of everything that America shouldn't stand for! He's racist, he's prejudiced, he's lewd, he's sexist and he's a bully. No, the man himself is a bit of a joke. It's what he says that's scary! And it's the possible consequences of what he says, should he win out, that are more scary still.
This is a man who speaks without thought for the consequences, who opens his mouth, throws out his wayward, often contradictory opinions before he's engaged his brain, then tries to get out of it afterwards by saying 'my comments were misconstrued!' Is this really the man we want with his finger on the button, who could just as easily start a nuclear war and then apologise after the fact saying that it wasn't what he meant, and he has no problem with Muslims, or Hispanics or whoever it is he had accidentally blown up!
This is a man who could antagonise half of the planet with his tawdry, poorly thought out opinions and make life unbearably hard for American's living or trying to do business outside of the US because, like it or not, human nature dictates that if the leader of nation holds such low-level views of non-white, non-Christian Americans, then every American, good or bad, holds the same antagonistic opinions. Far from making America great again, this is a man that could utterly destroy America's reputation and isolate the United States completely.
This is a man who doesn't believe in climate change and says that it's all scam by scientists designed to garner government funding for their little research and pet animal projects and as such would he blow the Paris accord out of the water, invest heavily in the toxic industries of oil and gas and coal, stop all funding to environmental agencies and disband all environmental research projects and yet, conversely, is building a wall to stop the ever encroaching sea as it erodes away his multi-million dollar golf course in Ireland.
This is a man within whom hypocrisy runs riot, contradictory opinions and values run hot and cold depending on where and to whom he's speaking. As Stephen Hawking says, this is a man who "appeals to the lower common denominator" and changes his tack and views as often as he changes his ties. This is a man who will say whatever he thinks the particular crowd wants to hear in order to win their vote, heedless of the facts, the truth or what he may have said before. The fact that so many of his fellow Republicans can throw their support behind this despicable man shows just how desperate the GOP is to win the November election. That Paul Ryan can be so aware of how racist and inflammatory Trump is and yet still say he backs him highlights just how desperate the GOP are for power after 8 years in the doldrums.
It stinks and the smell is pervading the whole of American politics, demonstrating just how fake, partisan and yes, political it has all become. Doing or saying the right thing no longer seems to matter. The good old American adage of 'win at all costs' is rearing its' head and it's uglier than ever. Agree with them or not, there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with traditionally held Republican values, but just as some Muslims twist and contort the meaning of the Koran in order to inspire other (weak-minded) Muslims to commit terrible atrocities so Trump is twisting Republican values until they become all but unrecognisable.
This upcoming election campaign, when it begins in earnest, I fully believe will prove to be the most vitriolic, the most personal and the ugliest in living memory. In much the same way as the EU referendum in the UK is ripping the British political scene asunder until one wonders how any of the major parties will be able to move forward, post-referendum, whatever the result, I believe that this US election could well signal the end of American politics as we know it. Whether it will all lead in the end to a reduction in America's sphere of global influence is open to debate and will perhaps only be seen fully given sufficient time, but I do predict that America's image will be tarnished beyond repair by Trump unless some way can be found to muzzle and stop this man before he can do too much damage to the reputation of the nation he professes to love.
Have a good weekend, whatever your politics!
Now, as much as it might irk many Britons to admit it, the United States is the most powerful, influential nation on earth right now and, barring planetary catastrophes, will probably remain so for the rest of my, and probably your lifetime, so who is in the Oval Office has a bearing on most everyone's life in some way or other, no matter how strong or oblique that influence may be.
People, groups, institutions, even whole nations look to the US to lead the way; how America does things, any things, can be hugely influential, though I do believe that level of influence has fallen somewhat since the turn of the century, particularly since 9/11. Nevertheless, America remains, for good or bad, the most powerful and influential nation on earth.
It's not just that the US has the largest economy, though that obviously helps (the US extend their reach), America's media (in all it's forms) has an enormous, almost overriding influence on current and (near) future trends, be they political, financial or something more aesthetic and obscure like fashion, music, movies, even down to what we eat, even what we say. Most of the biggest corporations in the world are American (e.g. Google, Facebook, McDonalds) and their say in what and how we live our lives is huge, albeit often unseen and unrecognised. American's are by far the best at marketing, be that an idea, a concept, a product, a TV programme, a movie, a clothes chain, a coffee house, or even an individual. Witness the outpourings of grief around the world following the sad passing of Muhammad Ali, who was undoubtedly a great boxer and a great man, but did we see similar grief and recognition when Mother Teresa died? No, nothing like. So is Muhammad Ali more, or less great than Mother Teresa? That's not for me to say, but perhaps Ali's passing has brought forth such outpourings because he was American and because of that, one way or another, his heavily marketed life touched many people indirectly in so many ways, mine included, whereas that of Mother Teresa touched only the lives of the relatively few that she directly interacted with.
Now, I'm not saying anything against Ali - heaven forbid - he was one of my great heroes (see my tribute here), but do you think he would have gained all the accolades he did during his remarkable life had he been born in...say, Ivory Coast? Or Kenya? I don't think so! Ali became great by virtue of the influence he had over so many people, an influence that was relayed to us via American TV, American news, American documentaries and American books, all of which filtered down into our own news, documentaries and books so that in the end Ali became part of our culture, be that British, French, African, whatever. He became great because he was (wittingly or not) marketed by the American media system and so his story reached the whole planet in a way that if he'd been from Kenya, it would not have done.
 |
| My mate, the highly attractive Donald trump! |
So, given that America has such a strong say in our lives, the man (or woman) in charge of America should be of interest to all of us, since he/she has a say either directly or indirectly in the lives of the vast majority of the people on the planet. Thus when a man like Trump, running for the Presidency of this most influential of nations says the things he does and behaves the way that he does, it should be of import to us all. The things he says, the way he does things, the way he treats people, races or religious groups becomes something that each and every one of us should be taking notice of, simply because of the influence that America holds over us. So when Trump disparages individuals because of their racial heritage, or their religious beliefs or their (lack of?) economic standing people take notice and follow his lead, particularly in America, but this filters down to all of us eventually, wherever we are via social media, TV or through simple conversation. His thoughtless, heartless bullying of anyone who rankles him, and the language he uses in doing so becomes hugely influential and for many it normalises such treatment, making it everyday and acceptable - after all, if a budding President can call women 'pigs' then it must be okay to treat women like that, right? If a budding President can call all Mexicans murderers and drug dealers then surely they are and should be treated as such, right? If a budding President can suggest that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned from his country, then they must be and they should be regarded in that light, right?
But none of these things are okay, regardless of how true or untrue they may be. Nor is it okay to suggest that he would order US armed forces to kill every member of ISIS, including their families, despite the illegality of such. He gives no thought to the political consequences of such an action; the trampling of national sovereignties that would be needed in order to achieve such; the social consequences (in America and elsewhere) of ordering the murder of the citizens of other nations (who make up ISIS); the resultant psychological and social effects of such an order on the individuals within the US armed forces! But because a budding President says it's okay, then it must be okay, right? I can almost hear the clamour for such action amongst the gung-ho, NRA wielding sections of US society because Trump has deemed it acceptable and has made their wildest, flag waving, gun-toting fantasies a near reality.
And do know what, for the rest of us, it's bloody scary! The man himself is far from scary; he's more a parody of everything that America shouldn't stand for! He's racist, he's prejudiced, he's lewd, he's sexist and he's a bully. No, the man himself is a bit of a joke. It's what he says that's scary! And it's the possible consequences of what he says, should he win out, that are more scary still.
This is a man who speaks without thought for the consequences, who opens his mouth, throws out his wayward, often contradictory opinions before he's engaged his brain, then tries to get out of it afterwards by saying 'my comments were misconstrued!' Is this really the man we want with his finger on the button, who could just as easily start a nuclear war and then apologise after the fact saying that it wasn't what he meant, and he has no problem with Muslims, or Hispanics or whoever it is he had accidentally blown up!
This is a man who could antagonise half of the planet with his tawdry, poorly thought out opinions and make life unbearably hard for American's living or trying to do business outside of the US because, like it or not, human nature dictates that if the leader of nation holds such low-level views of non-white, non-Christian Americans, then every American, good or bad, holds the same antagonistic opinions. Far from making America great again, this is a man that could utterly destroy America's reputation and isolate the United States completely.
This is a man who doesn't believe in climate change and says that it's all scam by scientists designed to garner government funding for their little research and pet animal projects and as such would he blow the Paris accord out of the water, invest heavily in the toxic industries of oil and gas and coal, stop all funding to environmental agencies and disband all environmental research projects and yet, conversely, is building a wall to stop the ever encroaching sea as it erodes away his multi-million dollar golf course in Ireland.
This is a man within whom hypocrisy runs riot, contradictory opinions and values run hot and cold depending on where and to whom he's speaking. As Stephen Hawking says, this is a man who "appeals to the lower common denominator" and changes his tack and views as often as he changes his ties. This is a man who will say whatever he thinks the particular crowd wants to hear in order to win their vote, heedless of the facts, the truth or what he may have said before. The fact that so many of his fellow Republicans can throw their support behind this despicable man shows just how desperate the GOP is to win the November election. That Paul Ryan can be so aware of how racist and inflammatory Trump is and yet still say he backs him highlights just how desperate the GOP are for power after 8 years in the doldrums.
It stinks and the smell is pervading the whole of American politics, demonstrating just how fake, partisan and yes, political it has all become. Doing or saying the right thing no longer seems to matter. The good old American adage of 'win at all costs' is rearing its' head and it's uglier than ever. Agree with them or not, there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with traditionally held Republican values, but just as some Muslims twist and contort the meaning of the Koran in order to inspire other (weak-minded) Muslims to commit terrible atrocities so Trump is twisting Republican values until they become all but unrecognisable.
This upcoming election campaign, when it begins in earnest, I fully believe will prove to be the most vitriolic, the most personal and the ugliest in living memory. In much the same way as the EU referendum in the UK is ripping the British political scene asunder until one wonders how any of the major parties will be able to move forward, post-referendum, whatever the result, I believe that this US election could well signal the end of American politics as we know it. Whether it will all lead in the end to a reduction in America's sphere of global influence is open to debate and will perhaps only be seen fully given sufficient time, but I do predict that America's image will be tarnished beyond repair by Trump unless some way can be found to muzzle and stop this man before he can do too much damage to the reputation of the nation he professes to love.
Have a good weekend, whatever your politics!
Thursday, 19 May 2016
Stop Breathing that Air! It's over MY land!
Stop Breathing that Air! It's over MY Land!
A few days ago a meeting convened at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the world received it's 2015-16 report card, and guess what? We got a 'B,' which is actually better than the 'C' grade for last year.
So what's this all about? Well, it's a grade given to the world based on 'international cooperation' and is awarded by the Council of Councils (CoC), a global think tank of experts from leading institutions from 25 different countries. In their own words, the
"The Council of Councils is an international initiative to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a dialogue on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation."
The meeting itself was very interesting and informative, but I hear you saying, so what? Why does the world need a report card? And I'd answer, that's a damn good question, and I'll do my best to give you a damn good answer!
Very quickly, these experts and their teams, 'evaluate multi-lateral efforts to address 10 of the world's most pressing challenges,' such as 'advancing global health, countering transnational terrorism' and 'mitigating and adapting to climate change,' and once evaluated each institution gives a grade (ranging A+, A, A- though to F giving a through range of 5 basic grades in total) for each challenge based on what they have witnessed, discovered or assessed to be the situation over the past year. Each challenge is then ranked (i.e. 1-10, with 10 of least importance) based on their take on the priority of importance to the world relative to the other challenges. The idea being that the governments of the world can then make policy decisions/adjustments based on the findings and we (the world) should then reap the benefits from their collective wisdom and policy changes!
For the full report and details of each challenge, how they are graded, etc, etc, etc, visit http://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/reportcard/#!/ I recommend it. It's a good read and well worth the time and effort to do so, even if it is a bit droll at times.
 |
| Much of the Middle East may become unlivable by 2050. |
Not surprisingly, given all the shit going on right now, the top 3 challenges are all to do with combating terrorism and dealing with conflict between states (e.g. Ukrainian conflict) and intra-state (e.g. Syrian civil war). No surprise there! A quick glance at the TV news each evening would probably be enough for us to nod our heads in agreement at those particular assessments. Number 4 on the list of worldwide priorities is the global economy and number 5 is 'mitigating and adapting to climate change,' and it's this challenge I'm going to look at in this blog today.
In last years report the 'climate' was given a 'C' grade so has in effect jumped two grades this year with 'A' mainly because of the 'COP21' Paris Agreement earlier this year and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the end of last year, both of which are deemed (by the Council) to be feather's in the cap of the fight against climate change! Furthermore, this 'challenge' also took the number 1 ranking in the 'hope for (further) progress' in the next year!
Now, I'm not an expert in climate change (despite a degree in Zoology and post-grad studies in ecology - see photo of macaques below), so far be it for me to disagree with the Council, but it would seem to me that they have vastly underestimated the relative importance of climate change to the world. Whilst I can fully understand the need to put the fights against terrorism and combating conflicts, even the world economy, ahead of climate change - after all they fill our newspapers and TV screens on a daily basis, maybe even keep us awake at night worrying about ever increasing bills, bomb threats, the safety of our kith and kin, the rate of inflation or how the mortgage will be paid - I still think the Council has got it wrong.
I would argue that terrorism and global conflicts were placed ahead of climate change based purely on political reasons and peer pressure and not on cold, clear logic, and here's why. For me it's quite simple, if we don't sort out the huge problems we face associated with climate change then everything else will eventually become irrelevant and redundant. For example, in the Middle East they're fighting over the right to occupy portions of land, or the placement of arbitrary lines on maps, or the right of one religious sect over another to tracts of land that, if climate change continues as it is, will become all but unlivable by 2050 due to rising temperatures that could make daytime temperatures of 40C an everyday occurrence and 50C a summertime norm! If we think the displacement of peoples from the Middle East is bad now, just wait....!
Just a cursory search taking no more than 5 minutes total yielded a whole bunch of potential environmental horrors - the World Bank says that 1.3bn people are at risk (due to climate change) at a cost to the global economy of ~$158tn; or in the last year alone the US has lost 50% of it's bees at a cost to the US economy of $10-15bn per annum; or the extinction of lake Urmia in Iran due to excessive dam building, broken political promises & poor attempts at modernisation; or the degradation of the Taj Mahal in India due to the proliferation of a mosquito-like insect that breeds excessively in the polluted waters of the Yamuna river and then deposits a green slime on the white walls which is exacerbated further by the darkening stains left by the thick air pollution of New Delhi; or the 200 families buried on Wednesday in Sri Lanka after an inundation caused huge landslides as a result of deforestation; or the fact that for 7 months in a row the global temperature has hit record highs, and what's more it's the 3rd month in a row that the record has been broken by the largest margin ever!!! It seems climate change is speeding up and that is really scary. Need I go on? I've got more, but to be frank it's all a bit depressing and more than a little bit worrying. All but 2 of those links are happening now. They are not predictions; they are facts!
 |
| These monkeys are from an indigenous sub-species of Japanese macaque that live only on the island of Yakushima, Japan, where renewable energy provides almost all electricity! |
And then I read an essay that said that people are sick of doomsday scenarios regarding climate change and that a different tack is needed to get people to take notice again. Well, okay then - so let's look at few positive examples to balance the equations a bit!
 |
| Wind turbines are commonplace all over Spain & provide 20% of national power needs. These ones sit atop mountains not far from where I live such that I cycle past them quite regularly. |
And there are many very encouraging and positive efforts being made around the globe. Many cities are confronting climate change head on by reducing their carbon footprint, divesting money away from fossil fuels and into greener investments, working towards energy sustainability through renewable energy sources, increasing their energy efficiency, encouraging the construction of greener houses/buildings and taking measures to actively reduce ambient pollution (e.g. San Francisco, Bogata, Copenhagen, Melbourne & many more).
Indeed Portugal is working towards 100% renewable energy consumption and ran last week for 3 days on electricity produced from solar and wind energy, and they are not alone. Denmark too is also close to zero emissions energy output (42% comes from wind power alone) and across Europe renewable energy sources are contributing more and more each year.
Wind power, however, is known to be a relatively inefficient producer of electricity, but there may now be answer for that too! In Tunisia Microsoft and a couple of investors from Pakistan are financing the 'Saphonian' machine; a new type of wind turbine that is 70% more efficient than traditional turbines and also far less costly to produce. The inventor, Anis Aouini, an ex-banker, says the Saphonian is still in the early development stages but if things go as planned then this technological advance could be 'as revolutionary as the invention of the wheel.'
So the world is fighting back but we all need to do our bit if we are going to save this wonderful place we all call home!
Have a tolerant, peaceful and an environmentally friendly day!
Friday, 6 May 2016
Is Muqtada al-Sadr the answer to al-Abadi's prayers?
The political waters in Iraq remain muddied with Prime Minister Haidir al-Abadi still unable to form a government that is acceptable to all parties. After repeated attempts in April to establish a technocratic government, each of which has spectacularly failed, al-Abadi has called for a brief governmental recess, though quite what this will achieve is unclear. Meanwhile, frustrations among the people of Iraq with all political factions and religious sects are growing. In April a sit-in of MP's, largely from the Ahrar bloc and under the guidance of controversial Shi'ia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, voted to oust the speaker of the house, al-Jabouri and disband the government, but didn't in the end have enough votes for a quorum and al-Jabouri retained his seat. A subsequent protest in the Green-Zone outside the parliament buildings, again under the guidance of al-Sadr, led to the parliament building being stormed over the past weekend with further calls for al-Abadi to name yet another cabinet re-shuffle.
Muqtada al-Sadr is a name synonymous with all that was bad in Iraq shortly after the 2003 US led invasion. His violent, but failed attempts to impose an Islamic theocracy on Iraq through his Mehdi army led him to become one of the coalitions deadliest enemies during the insurgency.
Sadr comes from one of Iraq's most prominent religious families that can trace it's ancestry all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. His father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, was one of the leaders of the Hawza, the Shia centre for religious seminaries and scholarship and was eventually gunned down (probably on the orders of Saddam Hussein) along with two of Muqtada's brothers in 1999, after which Muqtada took up the family mantle and began preaching against the US and Israel in his sermons, but nevertheless remained under close scrutiny by Hussein's security forces.
During the civil war (2006-2008) his militiamen were involved in some of the worst sectarian violence, but after a split in the Sadrist movement between the armed militia and the social strand of the party and a subsequent political defeat to Maliki's Sunni-led coalition, al-Sadr left for self-imposed exile in Iran.
However, since his return to Iraq in 2011 al-Sadr seems to have altered, if not softened his approach. The anti-US rhetoric has largely disappeared and he has adopted a less sectarian stance with his Shi'ia militiamen even fighting alongside Sunni tribesman against ISIS. Whilst many in Iraq still doubt his motives and cannot believe the change of heart he appears to have undergone, the aggressive tones of before seem to have largely evaporated and, as if to highlight the change, he responded to accusations of corruption within his party by removing the offending individuals, including getting rid of own Deputy Prime Minister Baha Araji in order to fully cleanse the Sadrist party of any lingering corruption allegations.
Perhaps an indication that al-Sadr may have undergone a change of heart and tactic is that upon entering the parliament building (this weekend) his Sadrist followers, were joined by Sunni's and Kurd's who waved Iraqi flags, not guns, with al-Sadr urging them not to harm anyone or cause damage of any description. The same was true outside in the Green Zone where the protests were gun free and largely peaceful, with none of the violence and Sectarian disruption that have been a trademark of Iraqi demonstrations until now.
As to whether al-Sadr can be a unifying force for good in Iraq is yet to be seen. Many, like al-Maliki, plainly believe 'leopards don't change their spots' and do not trust al-Sadr or his new found sense of Iraqi pride and nationalism. But al-Sadr himself, seems to want to work with al-Abadi, and unlike Maliki does not want the dissolution of the government, but is pushing the Prime Minister to complete his cabinet re-shuffle and get on with the business of governing.
However, in Erbil, in Kurdish controlled Iraq, they appear to have run out patience with the chaotic turns in Baghdad. Yesterday Mala Bakhtiar, a leading PUK politician, called for the Iraqi government to 'recognise the Kurdistan people's undisputed right' to a referendum that would allow the Kurds the right to self-determination, a right guaranteed under the Iraqi constitution.
Bakhtiar continued saying, 'the fragmented and indecent governance (in Baghdad) over the past 13 years has hardly been the answer to the plight of the people of Iraq,' with Kurdish President, Masoud Barzani, confirming that he would hold the referendum before the end of 2016.
Similarly Iraq's Sunni minority also doubt the direction of the government with many still suffering anti-Baathist abuse and persecution that is a long-lasting hangover form the days of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party when the Sunni minority ruled the country. More than a decade later, with many of their religious and political leaders dead, the Sunni's still endure grave human rights abuses (ref: Amnesty Int'l Report; The State of the World's Human Rights 2014/15) often known to be committed by government backed Shi'ia militias, such as the PMF (Popular Mobilisation Forces). Perhaps as a consequence in some cities, such as Mosul, which prior to the ISIS takeover was a Sunni stronghold, many are now in sympathy with the ISIS cause, something which complicates the situation yet further.
Whilst al-Abadi has paid lip service to the Sunni cause by offering government positions to some high-ranking Sunni's, their roles were in fact paper houses designed to appease rather than shelter the Sunni minority.
This fractious and fraught situation is made more complex still by the demands of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS, whose priority is the destruction of the terrorist group with Iraqi political security and stability coming a poor second to what they see as the primary cause to hand. This, combined with falling global oil prices, high unemployment, endemic corruption and a youth bulge, which has left ~40% of the population under the age of 15, all point to the immediate and pressing problems facing al-Abadi.
However, the weak position that al-Abadi finds himself in has been unexpectedly strengthened by al-Sadr's apparent support which may yet prove to be an effective 'counter-balance' against such undemocratic and corrupt forces as Maliki, and could well prove to be a unifying for good in Iraq. As to whether the coalition forces would accept, and indeed be able to work with someone like al-Sadr in a position of influence is another question, but for the moment he seems to be moving in a positive and peaceful direction, even if it doesn't concur completely with what Western ideas of what a future Iraq should look like.
.
 |
| Protesters outside in the Green Zone. |
Muqtada al-Sadr is a name synonymous with all that was bad in Iraq shortly after the 2003 US led invasion. His violent, but failed attempts to impose an Islamic theocracy on Iraq through his Mehdi army led him to become one of the coalitions deadliest enemies during the insurgency.
 |
| Muqtada al-Sadr |
Sadr comes from one of Iraq's most prominent religious families that can trace it's ancestry all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. His father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, was one of the leaders of the Hawza, the Shia centre for religious seminaries and scholarship and was eventually gunned down (probably on the orders of Saddam Hussein) along with two of Muqtada's brothers in 1999, after which Muqtada took up the family mantle and began preaching against the US and Israel in his sermons, but nevertheless remained under close scrutiny by Hussein's security forces.
 |
| Inside the Parliament building protesters wave Iraqi flags. |
During the civil war (2006-2008) his militiamen were involved in some of the worst sectarian violence, but after a split in the Sadrist movement between the armed militia and the social strand of the party and a subsequent political defeat to Maliki's Sunni-led coalition, al-Sadr left for self-imposed exile in Iran.
However, since his return to Iraq in 2011 al-Sadr seems to have altered, if not softened his approach. The anti-US rhetoric has largely disappeared and he has adopted a less sectarian stance with his Shi'ia militiamen even fighting alongside Sunni tribesman against ISIS. Whilst many in Iraq still doubt his motives and cannot believe the change of heart he appears to have undergone, the aggressive tones of before seem to have largely evaporated and, as if to highlight the change, he responded to accusations of corruption within his party by removing the offending individuals, including getting rid of own Deputy Prime Minister Baha Araji in order to fully cleanse the Sadrist party of any lingering corruption allegations.
Perhaps an indication that al-Sadr may have undergone a change of heart and tactic is that upon entering the parliament building (this weekend) his Sadrist followers, were joined by Sunni's and Kurd's who waved Iraqi flags, not guns, with al-Sadr urging them not to harm anyone or cause damage of any description. The same was true outside in the Green Zone where the protests were gun free and largely peaceful, with none of the violence and Sectarian disruption that have been a trademark of Iraqi demonstrations until now.
As to whether al-Sadr can be a unifying force for good in Iraq is yet to be seen. Many, like al-Maliki, plainly believe 'leopards don't change their spots' and do not trust al-Sadr or his new found sense of Iraqi pride and nationalism. But al-Sadr himself, seems to want to work with al-Abadi, and unlike Maliki does not want the dissolution of the government, but is pushing the Prime Minister to complete his cabinet re-shuffle and get on with the business of governing.
However, in Erbil, in Kurdish controlled Iraq, they appear to have run out patience with the chaotic turns in Baghdad. Yesterday Mala Bakhtiar, a leading PUK politician, called for the Iraqi government to 'recognise the Kurdistan people's undisputed right' to a referendum that would allow the Kurds the right to self-determination, a right guaranteed under the Iraqi constitution.
Bakhtiar continued saying, 'the fragmented and indecent governance (in Baghdad) over the past 13 years has hardly been the answer to the plight of the people of Iraq,' with Kurdish President, Masoud Barzani, confirming that he would hold the referendum before the end of 2016.
Similarly Iraq's Sunni minority also doubt the direction of the government with many still suffering anti-Baathist abuse and persecution that is a long-lasting hangover form the days of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party when the Sunni minority ruled the country. More than a decade later, with many of their religious and political leaders dead, the Sunni's still endure grave human rights abuses (ref: Amnesty Int'l Report; The State of the World's Human Rights 2014/15) often known to be committed by government backed Shi'ia militias, such as the PMF (Popular Mobilisation Forces). Perhaps as a consequence in some cities, such as Mosul, which prior to the ISIS takeover was a Sunni stronghold, many are now in sympathy with the ISIS cause, something which complicates the situation yet further.
Whilst al-Abadi has paid lip service to the Sunni cause by offering government positions to some high-ranking Sunni's, their roles were in fact paper houses designed to appease rather than shelter the Sunni minority.
This fractious and fraught situation is made more complex still by the demands of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS, whose priority is the destruction of the terrorist group with Iraqi political security and stability coming a poor second to what they see as the primary cause to hand. This, combined with falling global oil prices, high unemployment, endemic corruption and a youth bulge, which has left ~40% of the population under the age of 15, all point to the immediate and pressing problems facing al-Abadi.
However, the weak position that al-Abadi finds himself in has been unexpectedly strengthened by al-Sadr's apparent support which may yet prove to be an effective 'counter-balance' against such undemocratic and corrupt forces as Maliki, and could well prove to be a unifying for good in Iraq. As to whether the coalition forces would accept, and indeed be able to work with someone like al-Sadr in a position of influence is another question, but for the moment he seems to be moving in a positive and peaceful direction, even if it doesn't concur completely with what Western ideas of what a future Iraq should look like.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)