Britain, Economic, G7, Government, History, Human Rights, Politics, United Nations

Standing up to the global panjandrums

BRITAIN

IN Britain, it shouldn’t have gone unnoticed that the world’s great and good seem to have it in for us these days. Barely a week passes by without some grand panjandrum from a mighty global institution having a run-in with the way things are done on these shores.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the latest to have a go. Last week its chief economist urged the UK Treasury to forego further tax cuts in its March Budget and pump-up public spending instead.

The IMF has form when comes to lecturing Britain – often getting it completely wrong in the process. The IMF has no particular expertise when it comes to Britain and often regurgitates the global consensus advocating high taxes and big government.

The IMF is also something of a slow learner. It consistently underestimates the performance of the UK economy yet remains stuck in a doomster type loop.

For example, just twelve months ago it forecast that the UK would be the only G7 economy (a group of the world’s major free-market economies) to suffer a recession, with a 0.6 per cent decline in GDP.

In the event the recessionary wooden spoon went to Germany, which is often the apple of its eye. The UK economy grew by only a smidgen last year, but, contrary to the IMF gloomsters, it did not decline.

However, the political damage had been done. When the IMF starts predicting that we’ll be the worst in class, a cacophony of vested interest groups among us with a permanent grievance against their country, start to shout loudly and gleefully about how this is yet further proof of what a basket case we’ve become.

Yet, when it transpires that the forecasts were wrong, they’ve already packed their bags and moved on to some other alleged weakness. They never pay a price or any form of penalty for running the country down on a false premise.

Of course, the IMF isn’t just wrong about Britain. It forecast the U.S. economy would grow by only 1.4 per cent last year when in fact it expanded by over 3 per cent. A significant difference.

It predicted its beloved eurozone would grow by 0.7 per cent when it barely managed 0.1 per cent. There is no doubt, though, that it has a particular penchant for being down on the UK.

Undaunted, the IMF is now forecasting that the UK will be the slowest growing G7 economy this year. That’s likely to prove once again to be a cheap stunt. A study of IMF predictions about British growth since 2016 found them to be wrong 80 per cent of the time – and always for being too pessimistic. The IMF has rarely been wrong for over-estimating the performance of the British economy. No surprise there.

Brexit has given added piquancy to the gloomy predictions.

The powerful elite of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, et al, have never forgiven the British people for blithely ignoring their advice not to vote to leave the European Union in 2016.

The current chief economist of the IMF, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, rushed into print two days after the referendum with a posse of other disgruntled economists to warn of all the dire consequences which lay in store for Britain. A year later, he was forced to admit none had materialised – but still thought our future prospects were grim.

Having found a comfortable berth in the IMF, the Frenchman is typical of the socialist-leaning types who now dominate the global power structures of the higher echelon. Previously, he was economic adviser to the failed French socialist government of Francois Hollande.

Yet he’s a veritable moderate compared to some of the people who produce reports about Britain that comes out of the United Nations. Its “special rapporteur on extreme poverty”, Olivier De Schutter, recently visited these shores to opine that poverty in the UK was “simply not acceptable” and insisted it violated international law. Welfare payments, he concluded, were “grossly insufficient”. You might think his time would’ve been better spent in Somalia or North Korea. The UN has a strange way of acting.

It is not clear exactly what qualifies this Belgian lawyer to pontificate on British welfare policy, but his remarks were nothing new when it comes to UN criticism of us. His predecessor accused the UK Government of implementing a policy of “systemic immiseration” when it came to the poor – this in a country which spends over £265 billion a year on welfare (over a third of all state spending). De Schutter claims it has got “worse” since those remarks were made.

To get the full flavour of his global Leftist mindset, we must consider what he said: “We should stop focussing on creating the macroeconomic conditions that will stimulate growth… and focus instead on providing support to low-income households… to create a much more inclusive economy rather than one that creates wealth for the elites and particularly for the shareholders of large corporations.”

And there it is in all its unalloyed, anti-growth, anti-capitalist glory. Put aside the fact that most shareholders these days are pension funds whose investments we all depend on for much of our retirement income. Just look carefully at what is being proposed: do not look to economic growth to help lift up the impoverished, look instead at greater redistribution of wealth from the better off to the poor (as if that isn’t already happening). The better-off in Britain already account for a huge chunk of tax revenues. The generous slicing of the cake has more than found its balance.

Force middle-income earners to pay even more tax in a no-growth economy and they’re likely to up sticks and head for friendlier climes, as Scotland is about to discover, undermining the very foundations of the tax base in the process.

These days there is no end of nonsense coming out of the UN about Britain. No more so than on human rights. Another rapporteur, dealing with such issues, recently complained about the “severe” sentences ordered on two Just Stop Oil protesters.

They were imprisoned for scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge and causing traffic chaos for 40 hours. The UN saw this as an attack on the “right to freedom of expression”. It might want to look more closely at those currently languishing in the gulags and forced labour camps of Russia and China if it wants to see a real denial of human rights.

But no, its rapporteur doubled down, claiming new legislation in 2023 was a “direct attack” on public protest. I guess we’re just imagining the pro-Palestinian protests that have been commandeering central London almost every Saturday since the horrifying Hamas attack on Israel in early October.

But perhaps the greatest recent absurdity was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) claiming that Government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was wrong because Rwanda was “not a safe country”. Fair enough, you might think. Like many people in this country, I’m not a great fan of the Rwanda scheme either. But the UNHCR has recently been relocating vulnerable migrants from war-torn Libya to Rwanda itself.

This didn’t stop the High Commissioner from accusing Britain of a “general disregard for human rights”. This of a country in which, even if your asylum claim has been knocked back multiple times, it is well nigh impossible to be deported.

Despite the global elite never forgiving us for Brexit, the more the Left consolidates its grip on powerful world bodies, the more we are likely to hear this sort of nonsense about Britain.

There’s one other factor at work too.

We live in an age of identity politics in which the sins of the past, from slavery to colonialism, need to be atoned for. As a country complicit in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which also presided over the largest empire the world has ever seen, Britain is in the crosshairs of the new global elite’s agenda.

It doesn’t matter that we were also the first to abolish the slave trade or that so many citizens of the old empire now want to come and live on these shores. We have sinned and we must be made to pay, through reparations and being cast down in ignominy.

There is only one remedy: to stand up for ourselves.

We know our past mistakes, but we also know the great contribution we have made to world progress. We don’t need lectures from the global great and good.

Standard
Africa, Aid, Britain, Business, Economic, G7, Government

Britain: Aid cash to be used in boosting trade with Africa

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

THERESA May has pledged to use Britain’s overseas aid budget to boost post-Brexit trade with Africa.

She told an audience in Cape Town that she is “unashamed” of her ambition to ensure the multibillion-pound pot “works for the UK”.

The Prime Minister said that from now on Britain’s foreign aid budget will not only help combat poverty, but support “our own national interest”.

It comes after the bloated aid budget – now standing at almost £14billion a year – has come under fire as officials struggling to spend the money quickly enough have donated to a series of increasingly controversial projects.

Mrs May said funds will be specifically used to “support the private sector to take root and grow”. This means Britain will employ its aid to help create the conditions for UK businesses to have confidence to invest in Africa.

She also said the funds should go towards boosting security and tackling terrorism in the continent – a move to which she insists will make the UK safer.

The money will also be used to encourage potential migrants to stay in Africa so they are not tempted to make the dangerous journey to Europe.

The commitment comes amid the UK’s huge foreign aid budget struggling to maintain public support. Critics have long opposed David Cameron’s controversial policy and target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid.

The target has meant huge increases in aid spending in recent years – and guarantees it will continue to grow.

Public anger has grown given some of the examples of how the money is spent. These include a £5.2million grant to girl band Yegna, nicknamed the “Ethiopian Spice Girls”, whose funding was only halted last year.

Downing Street will now hope that the announcement of a realignment of spending will help convince voters of its worth.

The Department for International Development gives around £2.6billion a year in bilateral aid to Africa. The Prime Minister has also announced a new ambition to make Britain the G7’s largest investor in the continent within four years.

At present the U.S. is the largest contributor to African investment, but Mrs May aims to leapfrog it by 2022.

In Cape Town, the Prime Minister talked about changing the face of the UK’s aid spending in Africa both to reflect the continent’s rapid growth and to benefit Britain. There is a huge opportunity for British trade in a post-Brexit world. Mrs May’s three-day trip to the African continent will also take in visits to Nigeria and Kenya.

The PM said: “It is the private sector that is the key to driving that growth – transforming labour markets… And the UK has the companies that can invest in and trade with Africa to do just this.

“The private sector has not yet managed to deliver the level of job creation and investment that many African nations need.

“So I want to put our development budget and expertise at the centre of our partnership as part of an ambitious new approach – and use this to support the private sector to take root and grow.

“I am unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK.

“I am committing that our development spending will not only combat extreme poverty, but at the same time tackle global challenges and support our own national interest.

“This will ensure that our investment in aid benefits us all, as is fully aligned with our wider national security priorities.”

The Prime Minister also set out why working with Africa to deliver jobs, investment and long-term stability is in the interests of Britain and the wider world.

Mrs May pointed out that Africa needs to create millions of new jobs every year to keep pace with its rapidly growing population, adding: “The challenges facing Africa are not Africa’s alone.

“It is in the world’s interest to see that those jobs are created, to tackle the causes and symptoms of extremism and instability, to deal with migration flows and to encourage clean growth. If we fail to do so, the economic and environmental impacts will swiftly reach every corner of our networked, connected world.

“And the human impacts . . . will be similarly global.”

Addressing the issue of British trade, Mrs May said: “As Prime Minister of a trading nation whose success depends on global markets, I want to see strong African economies that British companies can do business with in a free and fair fashion.

“Whether through creating new customers for British exporters or opportunities for British investors, our integrated global economy means healthy African economies are good news for British people as well as African people.

“I want the UK to be the G7’s number one investor in Africa, with Britain’s private sector companies taking the lead in investing the billions that will see African economies growing by trillions.”

Standard
G7, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States

Boris Johnson is right in cancelling his Moscow trip

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Boris Johnson was due for crunch talks with Russia over the Syria crisis but cancelled the trip.

The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has come under fire both from Russia and political opponents at home for pulling out of a planned visit to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian chemical weapon atrocity.

Rather than travelling to Moscow to meet Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, he travelled to Italy for a G7 meeting, where he will seek political consensus for Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops from Syria.

His Russian visit would have been the first by a United Kingdom Foreign Secretary in five years and was cancelled after discussions with the US, which is sending Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow to deliver a “clear and co-ordinated” message to the Kremlin. It has inevitably opened Mr Johnson to the charge that he has ceded our diplomatic position to the US and left the UK with little by way of a credible independent voice of its own.

Moscow has predictably seized on this point, saying his decision casts doubt on the value of speaking to the UK “which does not have its own position on the majority of present-day issues, nor does it have real influence on the course of international affairs, as it remains ‘in the shadow’ of its strategic partners.”

But that should not be allowed to be a smokescreen by missing the greater issue at stake here: the Assad regime did indeed cross a line on a bombing mission which resulted in the use of chemical weapons against civilians and children in particular.

It is surely now up to President Putin who has defended the Assad regime to distance himself from an action that has outraged the world and to bring pressure to bear to ensure that there is no repetition of this appalling crime.

Indeed, until there is some clear indication from Moscow that it is open to movement on this point, the most appropriate response from the UK would be to leave in no doubt Russia’s isolation from normal diplomatic exchanges. These proceed on the basis of a shared commitment to respect for international law and UN-approved protocols that govern behaviour in armed conflict.

The ball is now firmly in Moscow’s court. And now is the time to press home the point that those who have backed the Syrian regime and extended Assad’s grip on power cannot be expected to enjoy normal diplomatic courtesies. The Foreign Secretary’s decision to lend UK support to a joint G7 call for a response is likely to carry more clout than the UK pleading on its own. Indeed, it is just the sort of co-ordinated international response that opposition parties would be urging in this situation.

Standard