Business, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Thesis: ‘Globalisation’…

GLOBALISATION: ‘PROBLEM & SOLUTION’

1. THE CRITICS’ VIEW

DEFINITION – Globalisation is defined as the ever-increasing integration of national economies into the global economy through trade and investment rules and privatisation, aided by technological advances. These reduce barriers to trade and investment and in the process reduce democratic controls by nation states and their communities over their economic affairs. The process is driven by the theory of comparative advantage, the goal of international competitiveness and the growth model. It is occurring increasingly at the expense of social, environmental and labour improvements and rising inequality for most of the world.

Or more bluntly:

Globalisation n.1. the process by which governments sign away the rights of their citizens in favour of speculative investors and transnational corporations. 2. The erosion of wages, social welfare standards and environmental regulations for the sake of international trade. 3. the imposition worldwide of a consumer monoculture. Widely but falsely believed to be irreversible. – See also financial meltdown, casino economy, Third World debt and race to the bottom (16th century: from colonialism, via development).

2. THE OFFICIAL VIEW

The former UK Minister for Trade, Richard Caborn, previously said:

…The government remains firmly behind a comprehensive new round of negotiations in the WTO as the best way forward for the UK, for developing countries in particular, and for the world economy as a whole. We are working for a more transparent WTO which promotes sustainable development and fosters the rule of law in international trade. [Richard Caborn MP (1999) Letters to the Editor, The Guardian, 11 October]

WTO = World Trade Organisation

In extracts of a letter to Alan Simpson MP, dated 19 February 1999, Brian Wilson MP, a former minister of trade, wrote:

Trade liberalisation is not the cause of the problem of the world’s economies, but the answer to them.

“By securing better access to overseas markets for producers, by reducing trade barriers, and maintaining and improving the supply of competitively priced goods and services to consumers, trade liberalisation brings widespread welfare benefits and helps to improve the efficiency with which the world’s resources are used. That is why the Government supports the EU’s call for a comprehensive new Round of trade liberalisation, which has already met with support from a number of developed and developing countries.”

Trade and environment:

“Our overall aim is to work towards sustainable development in accordance with the principles set out in the Rio Declaration adopted in 1992. The Government will work to ensure that trade liberalisation contributes to this aim, including action to safeguard the environment and the interests of developing countries. By enabling developing countries to derive more benefits from increased access to overseas markets and to inward investment, we can help them to increase prosperity which in turn has the potential to enable them to raise their standards of environmental and social protection.

…The Government believes that the evidence shows strongly that trade liberalisation is in the best interests of developing countries as well as developed countries. The OECD has found that in the last decade countries which have been more open to trade and investment have achieved twice the average annual growth of more closed economies. This is of particular importance to those countries which need to grow faster to deal with their greater infrastructure and capacity weaknesses.” [Brian Wilson MP, former Minister of Trade]

Continue reading

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Society, Terrorism

The reintroduction of treason laws is no solution in dealing with Islamic State terrorists…

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE THREAT OF IS ATTACKS ON THE STREETS OF BRITAIN

 The recent disclosure by Britain’s intelligence and counter-terrorism chiefs that an ‘exceptionally high’ number of terror plots by British citizens against Britain’s people and institutions are being investigated should chill everybody.

Such reports are no-doubt alarming, but does it justify, as one senior government minister has suggested, that those who accused of planning terrorist acts are prosecuted under the laws of treason?

We should need no reminder of the type of terrorist threat we are now faced with. It is one unlike any that Britain and the rest of the western world have so far faced, with barbarous killings and beheadings staged live on social media by Islamic State, the extreme fundamentalist sect against which war is now being waged in Syria and Iraq. Some of the suspects implicated in the terror cases which have gone to court are people who have returned to Britain after being trained in merciless terror tactics by IS – people who seem clearly intent on putting into practice what they have learned at terrorist training camps and madrassas while in the Middle East.

As many as 2,000 young British Muslims, including about 60 young women, have been radicalised by what they have learned from extremist preaching over the internet. After heeding the call of IS to wage jihad many have headed to the Middle East in pursuit of establishing an Islamic caliphate. A few have been sickened by their experiences there, but far too many have not.

We should not underestimate either that many recruits to the IS cause may also have taken up their methods without ever having left Britain’s shores, as well as those who may have been recruited and indoctrinated by those Islamists returning. It seems only too real and likely that the dreadful trademark of IS, the ghastly beheadings, along with shootings and bombings, is repeated on British streets.

In responding to this challenge Britain clearly needs to be ready. Counter-terror officers are already under severe strain as they attempt to monitor every conceivable avenue in foiling an attack. If more resources need to be allocated, either by training additional staff or by acquiring better equipment and technology they need, then so be it. National security and the safety of British citizens must rank high on the government’s agenda.

But what use would it serve, as Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary has suggested, for those caught planning such offences to be charged under treason laws? These are laws which date back some 600 years and which were last used more than half a century ago to prosecute Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce), who became notorious as a Nazi propagandist during the Second World War.

If such laws were reintroduced they would hardly serve as a deterrent. Treason is not punishable in the UK by the death penalty because that was abolished in 1965, but rather by a sentence of up to life imprisonment (the same as for murder). For any committed jihadist, a charge of treason to a state, for which they have a stated aim in destroying, is hardly likely to make them think twice.

Mr Hammond’s mere mention of reintroducing treason laws looks like a sign of panic amongst the political elite who have no clear idea of how to handle this particular threat within existing legal and moral boundaries.

A firm resolve and necessary resources are needed, which might also include the tightening of borders and entry points to the UK. For those seeking to gain access to Britain by harming us the tightening of security at air and seaport terminals should be underpinning all other aspects of national security.

Standard
Britain, Climate Change, Environment, Global warming, Government, Medical, Politics, Science, Society

BMJ says global warming should be declared a public health emergency…

GLOBAL WARMING

Intro: The BMJ, a top medical journal, has been accused by critics of being ‘alarmist’ as it joins the green agenda

A leading medical journal has warned that global warming is a ‘public health emergency’ that will cause thousands of deaths worldwide.

The BMJ claims that the ‘mayhem’ it will inflict on future generations will make deaths from the ebola outbreak ‘pale into insignificance’.

In an unusual move, the journal has set aside 11 pages of this week’s issue to warn doctors of the dire consequences of global warming – without any obvious relevance to medicine.

Critics described the article as ‘alarmist’ and ‘desperate’.

But in a separate commentary, the BMJ’s editor Dr Fiona Godlee defends the piece by saying doctors must understand the problem if they are to help tackle it. It is not the first time the publication – formerly known as the British Medical Journal – and its editor have spoken out on such a highly charged issue.

In July, it carried a piece calling for doctors to be allowed to help the terminally ill to die – prompting concern among medics.

In her most recent comments, Dr Godlee warns that seven million people die worldwide every year due to pollution and this will only increase if greenhouse gas emissions – which cause global warming – rise further. She points out that reducing these emissions by walking rather than using the car will have added benefits of reducing obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

And she calls on the World Health Organisation (WHO) to declare the issue a public health emergency – putting it on a par with the current ebola outbreak in West Africa which has claimed 3,000 lives since February.

‘Deaths from ebola infection, tragic and frightening though they are, will pale into insignificance when compared with the mayhem we can expect for our children and grandchildren if the world does nothing to check its carbon emissions.

‘And action is needed now,’ the article concludes.

Last year, experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the average global temperature had risen by 0.5C in 50 years. They predicted that over the next century temperatures will increase by 3C causing a rise in sea levels, flooding, disease outbreaks and, as a result, mass migration of refugees. Politicians are striving to reach an international agreement by December next year on legally-binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would aim to limit global warming to just 2C, and will replace the Kyoto Protocol which came into effect in 2005.

However the last attempt at a deal, at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, ended in disaster, and many politicians are worried about a similar result this time.

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a think-tank founded by the climate-change denier and former Chancellor Lord Lawson, accused the BMJ report of being needlessly alarmist.

He said: ‘The World Health Organisation would become a global laughing stock if they were to follow the ridiculously over-the-top demands of a green alarmist editor. There is a real disconnect between what they are saying and the reality.’

He added that the article was ‘just desperate’, saying: ‘The smaller the chance of an international agreement, the more desperate they get.’

Standard