As far back as the of 2016 certain events in the USA and the UK struck many, myself included, as being very similar in nature, not to mention worrisome.
Strictly speaking, this blog should also include Jeremy Corbyn who in many ways was the photo-negative image of Trump. Both had their hardcore supporters, both were democratically elected, both could not be shifted by democratic means yet one was conservative in his views while the other was as left as any politician could be.
But this article is about the resurgence of the right in world politics, as was the title of numerous news articles of the time. It attempted to explain the phenomenon as a failure of global free trade policies to lift the fortunes of a large part of society.On the contrary, in many ways it made life worse for them. So how have they been doing since then?
Again, even back then I was advocating that the resurgence of the right and the failure of the left was not as simple as it first looked. Consider what has happened since. In the USA, Trump, an unusual president by any standard has ended up isolating himself in the ivory tower called the oval office. While he periodically scores a goal or two through his anachronistic policies, anybody who thinks these are policies that can withstand the test of time are as nutty as a fruit cake. Denying something as fundamental as climate change is borderline insane. His trade policies belong in the 19th century and the taste the world has had of the benefits of free-trade has, in my opinion, ensured that it will be given another chance, and another.
Similarly, and in the same spirit I want to mention at this time ideas of unions such as the European Union and the United Nations. These truly stand above any single nation and have proven to have many benefits, that , should they fail, will be tried time and again. The reason is that basically they stand for what we all know, that they are far more altruistic than any national brotherhood can be and the greatest chance that humanity has in the future to avoid annihilation in an ever-increasing dangerous world.
They have many problems and slowly these are tackled. Yes, they do fail sometimes as indeed did the League of Nations after World War I, but just as one dies or rather fades away, a newer stronger one is born that rises out of the ashes. Even before the League of Nations was dead, the United Nations was born.
As was stated at the time, On this day in 1945, the United Nations Charter, which was adopted and signed on June 26, is now effective and ready to be enforced. The United Nations was born of perceived necessity, as a means of better arbitrating international conflict and negotiating peace than was provided for by the old League of Nations.
Frankly, I would bet my last euro on the fact that if something was to happen to European Union today, at the very moment of its death a newer stronger union would emerge. Britain's attempt to divide and rule is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. From Russia to China and even the USA, they have recognized that is not possible to keep together an empire at the point of a sword. You need openness, cooperation and a recognition by the victor of the needs of the weak and a willingness to help out. This is a lesson that the British Empire never learned in 400 years of its existence. Their only thought then as now is "what's in it for me?"
People like Jacob Rees-Moog and Nigel Farage just can't understand why the EU would ever take a decision that appears to them to be contrary to their own interests. In essence, all decisions should be based on the £, a lesson they taught the Americans whose only modification to this rule was to change the currency to the $.
But to get back to the rise of the right, as I mentioned, I for one do not believe that it was globalism that failed. That was not, nor is it the problem. Globalism isn't about making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. If one was to create an analogous metaphor, globalism isn't about how the cake is shared, it is about creating a bigger cake than the sum of the smaller pieces that each country had before. It creates more in totality. Just how it is divided is another subject. If anything it is a failure of the capitalist mentality that spawned globalism. The idea that "this is my idea,my capital so the profits are all mine and others be damned, just doesn't work!
This problem has been present from the very moment man discovered the benefits of trade and technology. When the factory was born, cottage industries were condemned to the history books. Competitive advantage in foreign trade means that most countries have something to offer, and even if they don't have things like minerals or factories, more often than not they have something else like labour; plentiful and cheap.
Nature is a wonderful and powerful thing. It has many things to teach and one of the most basic lessons is, as far as I am concerned, balance. Given time, nature will level the highest mountain, and fill in the deepest hole. This is the only future that can be sustained. Understand that the problems facing society are a result of wealth inequality, which in turn is a result mainly of income inequality, but more. It is also a result of an uneven playing field, a biased game where one of the players writes the rules and chooses the referee. It is a result of a game where one side cheats (morally if not legally) through tax avoidance and capital transfer.
Just think about this for a second. What kind of insanity creates, promotes and even applauds an industry whose only contribution to society is to think up newer and better ways to avoid tax?
But if society has deemed that such activities are OK, then why should people be offended when companies like Cambridge Analytica play with the rules of today's 'democratic' society to get their candidates elected?
Just don't insult my intelligence by calling this democracy.
For unknown reasons, Twitter is refusing my monstrously generous €40 ad to promote my petition, on quality grounds, for a new vote. Go figure! Be the first to inspect the ad!
Sign Petition : https://t.co/Wo8DgvjjYN
And while you’re there, consider signing the petition for the return of the final Brexit vote to the people. As things stand now, the only way to resolve this problem is to put the question back to the people. Give them 3 choices. It is NOT a referendum, which by definition is binary.
Accept the negotiated deal and leave in an orderly fashion
Refuse the deal and just leave, taking all the consequences
Refuse both options as being too costly and REVOKE article 50.
The man in the photo is Lord Kerr. He wrote the Article 50, never once thinking it was his own team that would invoke it.
Lord Kerr, a former UK ambassador to the E.U, said Brexiters in May’s cabinet were suggesting Brexit was irreversible and thereby misleading the public. The former diplomat says the UK could opt to reverse Brexit up to the moment we leave, even if a date for the country’s departure from European Union were added to the withdrawal bill, as Theresa May plans.
SIGN THE PETITION DEMANDING THE FINAL VOTE BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE. If there is no decisive winner (50%+) on the first round, eliminate the lowest score and progress to a second round of voting and repeat.
This is the only way to truly know what the people want and to unite the country again. Everybody, knowing the consequences, takes an informed decision. These are the options, this is the price! - DECIDE -.
Ask yourselves, do you really trust a politician, many of whom take donations from the Russians , to take what is almost certainly the most important decision of your and YOUR CHILDRENS' lives for you?
Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your fellow students. This sale is only on until March 29th, 2019. (Actually, if a transition period is negotiated it could be longer but I wouldn't risk it). Before Mar 29th 2019, even the EU can't stop a reversal. After that who knows) Vote the way you think and then its in the lap of the gods!
Sign Petition : https://t.co/Wo8DgvjjYN