Theresa May had been banging on for weeks about how voting against her brexit plan would be a betrayal of democracy. And she was clearly wrong, wrong, wrong.
UK MPs voted against her plan - with no time left for a new plan - by a whopping 432 to 202.
May's concept of democracy is fundamentally flawed. Yours is too, probably.
It is most clearly not democracy to implement brexit when the margin of a generationally important vote is 52% to 48% - and after all this time is still that close [the other way].
As it stands, any move on this will be a betrayal for half the country.
A new way has to be forged - a new question/answer altogether. Yes, in/out of Europe is binary. But you CANNOT move forward blithely on an issue that is so hopelessly divided.
More work, more discussion is needed. And that is what will happen. Despite the anguish, even if it takes another five years true democracy will be better served by continuing the discussion.
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The failure of democracy
It is ironic that some of the comments about the impending departure of the UK from the EU have lauded the referendum as a successful exercise in democracy. I note the Murdoch media in particular have hailed it thus:
Okay, I apologise, Murdoch is an easy target. But there have been plenty of others.
Irony, wry irony. The truth is the complete opposite. Even aside from Arrow's impossiblity theorum demonstrating the contradictions inherent in democracy, this vote was a spectacular failure, for a number of reasons
1. One person's voice was much weightier than anyone else's: Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire who financed the Leave campaign.
2. The outcome is sharp and total - and thus disenfranchises all those who voted against it. Nearly half the population had a voice that didn't count, and they know they will suffer from it.
3. None of the rest of the EU had a say in this - and it is such a momentous decision that it's easy to see scenarios where the whole of the European Union is destroyed.
4. The devil is in the wording of a plebiscite (as John Howard knew when he effectively shot down Australia's Republic referendum). David Cameron's overconfidence led to a simple wording for a complex choice. As an example: if it had been worded "Will you vote to Leave if the European Union doesn't act on x, y, and z", a far greater proportion of Britons would have been better enfranchise, as would the EU.
5. None of the rest of the world had a voice in this outcome - and we are likely to suffer economically because of it. Worst case, global recession, is not yet beyond the possible.
You think it is axiomatic that only Britons should have a say? That's democracy.
"a triumph of democratic reasoning" - The Australian
"democracy's victory" - Fox News
Okay, I apologise, Murdoch is an easy target. But there have been plenty of others.
Irony, wry irony. The truth is the complete opposite. Even aside from Arrow's impossiblity theorum demonstrating the contradictions inherent in democracy, this vote was a spectacular failure, for a number of reasons
1. One person's voice was much weightier than anyone else's: Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire who financed the Leave campaign.
2. The outcome is sharp and total - and thus disenfranchises all those who voted against it. Nearly half the population had a voice that didn't count, and they know they will suffer from it.
3. None of the rest of the EU had a say in this - and it is such a momentous decision that it's easy to see scenarios where the whole of the European Union is destroyed.
4. The devil is in the wording of a plebiscite (as John Howard knew when he effectively shot down Australia's Republic referendum). David Cameron's overconfidence led to a simple wording for a complex choice. As an example: if it had been worded "Will you vote to Leave if the European Union doesn't act on x, y, and z", a far greater proportion of Britons would have been better enfranchise, as would the EU.
5. None of the rest of the world had a voice in this outcome - and we are likely to suffer economically because of it. Worst case, global recession, is not yet beyond the possible.
You think it is axiomatic that only Britons should have a say? That's democracy.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Erratic Marxism stalks the EU
In Febrary 2015 in the Guardian, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis wrote "How I became an erratic Marxist". The gist is that he's working with European capitalism because
"Europe’s crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism than it is to unleash dangerously regressive forces that have the capacity to cause a humanitarian bloodbath."
In the above Guardian article, he also mentions that he found out later that his Sydney appointment was aimed at keeping out a left-wing candidate - which I find quite ironic, but the best of outcomes.
This article is based on his 2013 address (before his entry to parliament) to the 6th Subversive Festival in Zagreb,Croatia: "Confessions of an erratic Marxist". He argues that "Marx must remain central to our analysis of capitalism" but that at this point [then and now], it is necessary "to stabilise capitalism; to save European capitalism from itself". You can watch the address here, or read his intermediate version of this article on his blog here. You can read a more mainstream Marxist response to this ("poppycock") on a blog post from one Michael Roberts, More Erratic than Marxist, which has some debate on the issue afterwards.
(For what it's worth, the Yanis I remember looked more like this:
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Economics, Europe, intellectual engagement, hats
I had an economics lecturer at university who gave the best course I
ever attended. It was on the history of liberalism. A sadly misused term in the US, this does not refer to the politics of anyone who is vaguely left of centre: in the true sense it refers to the political philosophy that underpins the western world, including capitalism.
It was the way he presented the material that mattered the most to me. Assuming, of course, that I have no fundamental disagreement, I'm a sucker for anyone who has verve and who is intellectually engaging. And he had that enthusiasm, he had a sharp sharp mind, and he was particularly engaging. Ultimately, his response to liberalism was... praxis. That is, action. A punchline that initially sounded like an anticlimax, but it had - and has - a truckload of meaning, in context. Given the journey and the challenges he took us through in that course, I still have enormous respect for him, and would still take any course he has on offer.
So, it looks like my lecturer, Yanis Varoufakis, is now the Greek Minister of Finance. And he's going to be central to negotiations on the future of the monetary union.
Of course, his coalition's platform is absolutely opposed to the EU-imposed austerity program in Greece. And Yanis remains a thorough-going Marxist, whatever anyone says. But he's a very practical person, and he understands the practical mechanics of capitalist economics very well. I expect him to be able to face up to the best negotiators Europe has to offer, so I think the ultimate outcome is going to be good for both Greece and Europe.
PS My teenage son's values are different, and none of this matters to him. The main credibility Yanis has with my son is his contribution to the games-maker Valve, in the economics of trade in virtual hats.
It was the way he presented the material that mattered the most to me. Assuming, of course, that I have no fundamental disagreement, I'm a sucker for anyone who has verve and who is intellectually engaging. And he had that enthusiasm, he had a sharp sharp mind, and he was particularly engaging. Ultimately, his response to liberalism was... praxis. That is, action. A punchline that initially sounded like an anticlimax, but it had - and has - a truckload of meaning, in context. Given the journey and the challenges he took us through in that course, I still have enormous respect for him, and would still take any course he has on offer.
So, it looks like my lecturer, Yanis Varoufakis, is now the Greek Minister of Finance. And he's going to be central to negotiations on the future of the monetary union.
Of course, his coalition's platform is absolutely opposed to the EU-imposed austerity program in Greece. And Yanis remains a thorough-going Marxist, whatever anyone says. But he's a very practical person, and he understands the practical mechanics of capitalist economics very well. I expect him to be able to face up to the best negotiators Europe has to offer, so I think the ultimate outcome is going to be good for both Greece and Europe.
PS My teenage son's values are different, and none of this matters to him. The main credibility Yanis has with my son is his contribution to the games-maker Valve, in the economics of trade in virtual hats.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Common currency and variant policies
I have long wondered how there can possibly be monetary union without fiscal union.
That is, how can a number of countries share the same currency, yet have economic policies that are not strongly aligned? A tight budget in one country, a lax spending regime in another, and the money market has mixed – misaligned – signals on the value of the currency. One set of policies would drag the other down – or up, depending on the relative weight of the national economies.
Of course, it’s all very well to say this after the event. (What’s a blog for, if not to flag the thought ahead of time?)
Clearly, union of economic policies in the Euro zone is a bridge too far - at present at least. Thus European politicians (and econocrats) are by necessity making the case that there can be a way to salvage a common currency – no doubt through the gradualism that seems to have become a feature of the evolution of the EU.
The European Union (and predecessors) has always been the most advanced polity in the world. Yet I never expected it to be carried this far this quickly. That gradualism that did it, though, has led to the current mess which will tip many economies into recession.
But if they can sort it out, they are showing the way forward for the whole planet. Unless, of course, the world ends up in blocs à la 1984. Whether that’s a bad thing, we still can’t say with certainty, but surely such integration means a more stable, rational world – either way.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama on foreign policy
Obama's book (Audacity of Hope) give a very helpful understanding of his goals for the US into the future - but as well as the good, it also flags some areas to watch out for, and some areas where his capacity to achieve an ideal will be sorely tested.
His words place his ideological foundation squarely in the western liberal tradition. Yes, he is a "liberal" in the American understanding of the word - that is, about as near as they can get to left-wing - but I'm using the term in the philosophical sense. This means he is explicitly pro-capitalism: he says as much. In that context, his words paint a picture of government as being the mediator and director of capitalist forces for the benefit of the people. It has to be said, however, that Obama's expression of his ideals - and he does have a nobleness of spirit - at times verges on motherhood sentiment. With a politician's eye on appreciating the dichotomous perspectives of the everyman, it's easy to suspect his capacity to exercise a hard edge that is sometimes needed to force a lurch of society in the right direction. Still, in terms of both ethics and position on the left-right spectrum, he is the most promising president in a very long time, and it's hard to see America producing the likes of him very often at all.
His chapter on the American constitution gives a good insight into the basis for the general American vision; he looks to the constitution and founders as a kind of bible for the values of their political and social system - yet ultimately he recognises that the original model for government is not a perfect bedrock: more, a basis for an ongoing political discussion.
(His assessment might be reasonably accurate - unsurprisingly, he has taught constitutional law. However, it also reveals a flaw inherent in their model - that there is too little to stop the political discourse being hijacked by a sufficiently strong ideologue or power nexus, particularly in the face of plummeting public engagement in any political processes. ...to Obama's personal credit, he has probably raised the political engagement of the general public to levels not seen in a few generations.)
And there are clear problems with Obama's exposition on America's relationship with the world. Yes, he has a solid understanding of the nature of American foreign policy, and its all-too-often deleterious consequences. He knows very well how America has time and again fuelled the fires of emnity around the world - hardly more so than in the very recent past. He understands
But two broad principles emerge from his discussion that mitigate against soundness in peace and international co-operation. The first is the age-old issue of ceding sovereignty to external organisations. A nation does this rarely, but with the notion that the real and upfront concessions are repaid by the more real and longer-term benefits. (The gradually evolving European Union is a good example of this: a very slow process in which an amount of sovereignty is yielded every once in a while, as pluses slowly emerge.)
The other notion that emerges is one that America's fundamental values are simply right or, at least, better than anyone else's, and that foreign policy just needs some - sometimes major - adjustment. First, as my wife is fond of telling me, knowing I am right - or my values are right - does not make it so. Second, that is not the way to foster international rapprochement.
Having said all this, I still think American could not have produced a more promising president.
His words place his ideological foundation squarely in the western liberal tradition. Yes, he is a "liberal" in the American understanding of the word - that is, about as near as they can get to left-wing - but I'm using the term in the philosophical sense. This means he is explicitly pro-capitalism: he says as much. In that context, his words paint a picture of government as being the mediator and director of capitalist forces for the benefit of the people. It has to be said, however, that Obama's expression of his ideals - and he does have a nobleness of spirit - at times verges on motherhood sentiment. With a politician's eye on appreciating the dichotomous perspectives of the everyman, it's easy to suspect his capacity to exercise a hard edge that is sometimes needed to force a lurch of society in the right direction. Still, in terms of both ethics and position on the left-right spectrum, he is the most promising president in a very long time, and it's hard to see America producing the likes of him very often at all.
His chapter on the American constitution gives a good insight into the basis for the general American vision; he looks to the constitution and founders as a kind of bible for the values of their political and social system - yet ultimately he recognises that the original model for government is not a perfect bedrock: more, a basis for an ongoing political discussion.
(His assessment might be reasonably accurate - unsurprisingly, he has taught constitutional law. However, it also reveals a flaw inherent in their model - that there is too little to stop the political discourse being hijacked by a sufficiently strong ideologue or power nexus, particularly in the face of plummeting public engagement in any political processes. ...to Obama's personal credit, he has probably raised the political engagement of the general public to levels not seen in a few generations.)
And there are clear problems with Obama's exposition on America's relationship with the world. Yes, he has a solid understanding of the nature of American foreign policy, and its all-too-often deleterious consequences. He knows very well how America has time and again fuelled the fires of emnity around the world - hardly more so than in the very recent past. He understands
But two broad principles emerge from his discussion that mitigate against soundness in peace and international co-operation. The first is the age-old issue of ceding sovereignty to external organisations. A nation does this rarely, but with the notion that the real and upfront concessions are repaid by the more real and longer-term benefits. (The gradually evolving European Union is a good example of this: a very slow process in which an amount of sovereignty is yielded every once in a while, as pluses slowly emerge.)
The other notion that emerges is one that America's fundamental values are simply right or, at least, better than anyone else's, and that foreign policy just needs some - sometimes major - adjustment. First, as my wife is fond of telling me, knowing I am right - or my values are right - does not make it so. Second, that is not the way to foster international rapprochement.
Having said all this, I still think American could not have produced a more promising president.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Environmental crisis (#3 of 2008)
The eye was off the ball this year, distracted by the global financial crisis.
In the last two decades, habitat destruction has been recognised as the biggest threat to biodiversity - but recognition has not sufficiently translated into action. That very narrative was compounded and magnified by the complete wrenching of the global ecosystem, simply because we vote for leaders who are too lacking vision to grapple with the large-scale industrial revolution needed to counter global warming.
The European Union has been - by and large - a bastion of sensible policy. However, their approach remains far too evolutionary and not revolutionary enough. China and India are slow to respond, but are not helped by lack of leadership from the industrialised nations. In America, we have to wait for George W Bush's pathetic body to be shovelled bit by bit out of the Whitehouse - and then have to wait for Obama's plan to translate vision into action.
Which, as it happens, is where Australia has tripped up in a big way. While espousing mantras on the absolute imperative of combatting global warming, Kevin Rudd's leadership has been characterised by lengthy inaction and delaying investigation - trumped by the release of a policy raft that demeans all Australians in the smallness of its vision - so much so that it has been said to actively encourage dirty carbon emitters to ramp up their destructive practices for some time to come - whereupon they will be handsomely rewarded with government handouts, and have plenty of room to make token improvements.
Kevin Rudd was characterised by a Canberra insider as being especially indecisive. His deputy - and frequent acting Prime Minister - Julia Gillard was in turn described as being particularly intelligent and action-focused. I have heard her performance in parliament several times, and her ability is clear and strong. Waiting for the great leap forwards.
In the last two decades, habitat destruction has been recognised as the biggest threat to biodiversity - but recognition has not sufficiently translated into action. That very narrative was compounded and magnified by the complete wrenching of the global ecosystem, simply because we vote for leaders who are too lacking vision to grapple with the large-scale industrial revolution needed to counter global warming.
The European Union has been - by and large - a bastion of sensible policy. However, their approach remains far too evolutionary and not revolutionary enough. China and India are slow to respond, but are not helped by lack of leadership from the industrialised nations. In America, we have to wait for George W Bush's pathetic body to be shovelled bit by bit out of the Whitehouse - and then have to wait for Obama's plan to translate vision into action.
Which, as it happens, is where Australia has tripped up in a big way. While espousing mantras on the absolute imperative of combatting global warming, Kevin Rudd's leadership has been characterised by lengthy inaction and delaying investigation - trumped by the release of a policy raft that demeans all Australians in the smallness of its vision - so much so that it has been said to actively encourage dirty carbon emitters to ramp up their destructive practices for some time to come - whereupon they will be handsomely rewarded with government handouts, and have plenty of room to make token improvements.
Kevin Rudd was characterised by a Canberra insider as being especially indecisive. His deputy - and frequent acting Prime Minister - Julia Gillard was in turn described as being particularly intelligent and action-focused. I have heard her performance in parliament several times, and her ability is clear and strong. Waiting for the great leap forwards.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Keating's wide-ranging speech of ideas
Paul Keating gave a speech to the Melbourne Writers' Festival on Sunday. He took the opportunity to wrestle with the shifting sands of world power in our era.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Climate Change conference: Rudd's hard call
The current Climate Change conference in Bali would test anyone's mettle.
This year's IPCC reports demonstrate the problem is more urgent than previously acknowledged, and carbon emission targets need to be more stringent.
The developed world has four big issues that sound simple, yet are nigh on intractable politically.
First, agreement on targets for developed countries. The European Union recognises the need for greater urgency, and is aiming for 25% to 40% emission reductions by 2020. New Zealand is in line, but the US, Canada, and Japan are likely holdouts. Australia's delegation signalled that it supported that goal. However, PM Kevin Rudd subsequently hedged, saying he will "take advice on whether the targets are workable".
Second, the industrial world has a clear responsibility to support the developing world in meeting targets. The current problem is almost entirely due to the rich nations, both in their industrialisation, and in their decimation of their own wilderness. And from a letter in today's Herald:
"Appealing to self-interest alone will fail as the countries with the best capacity to bring about change face proportionately fewer effects from climate change and have greater capacity to adapt than the countries that are the smallest polluters." - Simon Biddle
So, the challenge lies specifically with the rich countries: in industrial restructuring, and in supporting others with technology and money. I am quite confident political will is going to be thin on the ground. Except with the EU and New Zealand.
Third, China. China has to agree to real emission goals, and this is going to be hard. To make any sense at all, they need to cut emissions, however they can cogently argue that they are not properly industrialised yet, and so should not cut, or should be treated as a developing country. The pragmatic solution lies in treating them as a special case, with a bit of both in the mix.
Fourth, the US. Bush will absolutely remain a holdout, and will only agree to tokenism. That is, aspirational but not real goals. Two of Bush's delegates to the conference (mentioned here) are James Connaughton, one-time energy-sector lobbyist, and current stooge in the Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, neo-conservative Under Secretary of State and staunch defender of the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto.
What chance do we have? What will Australia do, now that we are no longer as firmly glued to US policy as we were under John Howard?
Rudd is caught in a bind. His election campaign presented two principles that are apparently diametrically opposed: commitment to climate change, and economic [fiscal] conservatism. Quite a big test so soon after taking the reins.
There is one clear answer to that, as demonstrated by the Stern Review: the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction.
I'm quite pessimistic about seeing an appropriate outcome. It is clear that Stern will be treated as a Cassandra - correct but unheeded. But... there remains hope. We still have the leadership of the EU to look to: I believe they are capable of forging ahead, and waiting for the world to catch up.
This year's IPCC reports demonstrate the problem is more urgent than previously acknowledged, and carbon emission targets need to be more stringent.
The developed world has four big issues that sound simple, yet are nigh on intractable politically.
First, agreement on targets for developed countries. The European Union recognises the need for greater urgency, and is aiming for 25% to 40% emission reductions by 2020. New Zealand is in line, but the US, Canada, and Japan are likely holdouts. Australia's delegation signalled that it supported that goal. However, PM Kevin Rudd subsequently hedged, saying he will "take advice on whether the targets are workable".
Second, the industrial world has a clear responsibility to support the developing world in meeting targets. The current problem is almost entirely due to the rich nations, both in their industrialisation, and in their decimation of their own wilderness. And from a letter in today's Herald:
"Appealing to self-interest alone will fail as the countries with the best capacity to bring about change face proportionately fewer effects from climate change and have greater capacity to adapt than the countries that are the smallest polluters." - Simon Biddle
So, the challenge lies specifically with the rich countries: in industrial restructuring, and in supporting others with technology and money. I am quite confident political will is going to be thin on the ground. Except with the EU and New Zealand.
Third, China. China has to agree to real emission goals, and this is going to be hard. To make any sense at all, they need to cut emissions, however they can cogently argue that they are not properly industrialised yet, and so should not cut, or should be treated as a developing country. The pragmatic solution lies in treating them as a special case, with a bit of both in the mix.
Fourth, the US. Bush will absolutely remain a holdout, and will only agree to tokenism. That is, aspirational but not real goals. Two of Bush's delegates to the conference (mentioned here) are James Connaughton, one-time energy-sector lobbyist, and current stooge in the Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, neo-conservative Under Secretary of State and staunch defender of the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto.
What chance do we have? What will Australia do, now that we are no longer as firmly glued to US policy as we were under John Howard?
Rudd is caught in a bind. His election campaign presented two principles that are apparently diametrically opposed: commitment to climate change, and economic [fiscal] conservatism. Quite a big test so soon after taking the reins.
There is one clear answer to that, as demonstrated by the Stern Review: the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction.
I'm quite pessimistic about seeing an appropriate outcome. It is clear that Stern will be treated as a Cassandra - correct but unheeded. But... there remains hope. We still have the leadership of the EU to look to: I believe they are capable of forging ahead, and waiting for the world to catch up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)