For global and EU systemics to work they need more than trade flows. Or less

Here are some systemics and dynamics thoughts (written and tweeted Nov 24, 2012):

What libertarians seem to forget imo is that any group of more than 1 person constitutes a "society" or polis etc. Laws are part of explicit and informal "social contract" between members of a society/group/polis (politics comes from polis). The economy is also a dimension of a social contract when families stopped self producing everything and started trading w/ each other. Intra-polis trade between families created need for prices (even in barter trade) and thus money. But in basic intra-polis/village trade no one was really left "jobless", was mostly specialization benefits.

I am sure economic theories/models (be they of 5000 BCE or 2012 CE) worked much better in 5000 BCE! In a way, extra-polis trade (see eg explorers to "new worlds") disrupted the social/econ contracts/balances of de facto closed societies. Not to mention that lack of competition rules probably had created warlords and other oligarchs inside closed systems/cities/villages.

Why do I say probably? Cos I was not there to see for myself, at 5000 or something BCE. Were you?

Opening up and allowing trade between families in a polis came as part of social and legal contracts/laws/balance. But but inter-polis (ie inter-national) trade/exchanges were not coupled by common laws and a social/econ contract! Were they? No WTO etc.

That is still in 2012 the underpinning element of trade and other inter-state exchanges of all kinds: They fall outside national scopes. Of course so many are in favor of free trade without unification, it sort of allows them to have the cake and eat it too!! Think about it!

Trade between entities not bound together the way a country is bound together is sort of having a cake and eating it too! Sort of "dumping".

That is also part why most economic models/theories have failed. They deal in principle and de facto with closed systems. Look at GATT and the WTO: It regulates basically trade but fails to deal with many other dimensions thus systemically unbalanced. What I am saying is that trade, investment, migration and other flows need to happen within a "system". Is such system compatible with any sub-global/earth sovereignties? In other words is even trade compatible with national sovereignty since separate social contracts?

Can comparative advantage really exist in a league (competition) between 200+ national economies where there is no actual "league"? Does this mean that the world needs to become a federal political entity for "fair" trade to exist? Is it otherwise an "animal farm"? Can national social contracts exist at the same time as free trade exists? Much like libertarians who want to exploit imo the benefits of a society (econ is a social activity) w/o the "costs" of a society ... Or look at how some in the UK want to free-ride Europe and the world w/o any associated social contracts or rules! Pick and choose only!

Thus no wonder that many of the arguments used against the EU are actually prompting localism/separatism in many EU member states!To use absiloute logic, either sovereign states need to become like eg Cuba or North Korea or join together in a federal entity!!

But in any case, imo trade was, back when it started in human history, the first opener for more open systems. But that was thousands of years ago. Not in 2012! The systemics to work need more than trade flows. Or less.

The idea that one can be a sovereign state (city, national, etc) and still engage even in trade with others is imo challenged in this era!  It worked in 1200 BCE or 1400 CE or even 1949 (GATT era) etc but not in the systemics and dynamics of 2000s!

Thus it should come as no real surprise that European and US and world systemics and dynamics are out of control in the 2000s and 2012 and that globalization, regionalization (EU, UNASUR, ASEAN), nationalization (UK), localisation/separatist dynamics do co-exist in 2012!  Because systemically speaking the system is out of whack! Freedom of trade and investment cannot work systemically for long w/o full system integration.


Note: Available for research and analysis for think tanks, NGOs, civil society orgs, firms, policy makers, media, academia anywhere in world.

Should we push the reset button on economic and political theories of the era?

Should we push the reset button on economic thinking & theories. Have most of them become irrelevant in our era? Back to basics as foundation?

Let me start off with this syllogism:

My parents taught me to sell only what I own and to only buy something when I have the money to pay for it. Were they wrong?

Someone suggested that my parents were wise. But does that mean that they were they right? Or wrong? Did they raise me for success or failure in the real world, based on that mentality (culture)? In other words, was/is that mentality a way to succeed in the modern world? Or a barrier? Just discussing.

Someone else suggested that if everyone did the same the economy would implode. Did he mean that credit based capitalism would implode? Assuming so. what does that then imply about its fundamentals? Sound or shaky?

Moving on:

Capitalism: Storing value is one thing, but Is it "OK" to make money (profit) from lending/investing money?

Moving on:

Many (eg in Britain) talk re "Sovereignty" vis-a-vis EU.

But:

How sovereign is a country that has financial obligations to foreign countries or nationals?

How sovereign is a country that takes instructions from foreign private organisations, media or "houses"?

How sovereign is a country that relies on foreign investment or foreign consumers or has a trade deficit?

Can't/shouldn't a sovereign have the freedom/power to walk away from any foreign or international legal (eg EU and its set of laws in the form of transposed directives or regulations) or financial (eg debt) obligation to another sovereign or a non-sovereign entity or even a private entity?

What about the sovereignty of the human race as a whole vis-a-vis global warming, radiation pollution risks, HIV/AIDS, cancer, famine, etc?

Sovereignty of a) nations, b) states (a state is not necessarily/usually a nation) or c) the human race? d) __________?

Moving on:

If the world is indeed global nowadays, then why do we still have ranking of countries in many areas/things? Why is there no label "Made on Earth"? Is it a global world or a global championship between countries?

How can one be a "citizen of the world" when the world is not a single Polity or state (in the Platonic sense)?

Is there a European union or a European championship between 27 countries with the EU institutions as the governing body & referee?

Just thinking, philosophising, etc. Because and therefore I am.
In 2011, is it "I think therefore I am" or "I am therefore I think"? Or both? Or neither (seems the case)?

Does the EU need Financial sovereignty?

Sovereignty in 21st century terms IMO includes:

Military (having your own military - defence capability, both in manpower and tech/weapons)

Legislative: The ability to pass you own laws by political bodies where your citizens views are represented.

Economic, taxation and monetary policy: Having your own tax system, tax authorities, your own currency and the ability to have your own exchange rate policy.

It is my opinion that in 21st systemics, ie the role of China, the US, India, Russia, only a united Europe can provide such sovereignty instead of individual countries. The same way that city-states evolved to nation-states, the polities of the 21st century seem to need to have bigger size (in population, surface, etc) in order to achieve the economies of scale needed for sovereignty that is viable and can be maintained.

These are some of the areas sovereignty is need in our era, and this applied to the EU too:

1) Self-reliance in energy
2) A high level of self-reliance in at least staple foods

Food for thought:

In our era, does a state, and in particular the EU, need sovereignty in Finance?
Or at least at Eurozone level?

Sovereignty not only vis-a-vis other states but the global financial system as well?

The EU needs "sovereignty" in energy

I have often argued that the best way for the countries of Europe to maintain their sovereignty is the new global systemics is via full union (ie not the current level of union).

Here is one example:

Eurostat has announced today a big hike in EU27 deficit for energy: -92.2 bn euro in Q1 2011 compared with -69.3 bn in Q1 2010!

The EU trade deficit in energy shows that the EU needs to become much more energy self-sufficient, else its sovereignty is at stake. The EU, is in full union, can achieve this.

EU: political union or economic colonisation by world powers?

Especially in our era, few if any local issues and dynamics are not intertwined with regional (eg EU) or global issues and dynamics. Unless humanity goes back to countries-fortresses.

In our era's volatile global systemics, a country can always build walls ie become a fortress in an effort to preserve its sovereignty and its distinct ID, be that in culture and "values", laws and their underlying philosophy. Opt out of the global trade "game" and preserve the ownership of its key industries, rely on its own "capital", be it monetary or any in any other form. Not have to rely on the views of the global financial community or follow the rules of the WTO or other international bodies. Every country should have and has that right. But how realistic is that? How can it be self-reliant on energy, foods (at least the basic ones), security, economics, capital, etc? And what size (land, population, GDP, internal market) does this option require?

Shared sovereignty (via a real political union USA or FR of Germany style) is a better option than being colonised (economically etc) by one of the world powers, ie China, India, USA, Russia. This IMO applies to the countries of Europe, South and Central America, and other parts of the world. And the EU and UNASUR (in South America) are "vehicles" of such "shared sovereignty" but which has yet to materialise via proper political union.

Everyone is different, But that is a relative term. To a certain extent every country is different and to a certain extent all countries are the same. Which is more feasible eg a political union between eg Ireland and Greece or one between Ireland and eg South Korea? To a certain extent neither is feasible and to a certain extent both are feasible! We do live in "nothing is impossible" times.

Local, national, regional (eg European) and global citizen identities can well co-exist. The issue is at what level, local, national, regional (EU) or global the Polity is formed. Continent-state is an emerging model in terms of having the potential, via shared sovereignty, to provide an adequate level of self-reliance in energy, foods, defence, have a large enough internal market, economies of scale in many utilities and social welfare (eg a Health Service).

People have indeed tended to group around ethnic, geographical and cultural ties. But these are not static over time. Plus melting pot models have always existed (see eg my post "Globalisation, today and in 300 BC"). The US or even just NYC (or London) is a place where nationalities, languages etc can co-exist in a melting pot under a common polity, currency, laws and language spoken at work. Dozens of languages (337 according to Wikipedia) are spoken in US homes or even homes in NYC, one of the key metropoles of the era (138 languages spoken in Queens, NY)

The alternative is colonisation, driven by economics, by one of the real world powers of the era (China, USA and maybe Russia and shortly, India (*)). A balkanised Europe, with a minimal EU and each member "sponsored" by one of those powers.

(*) Could one count the global financial system as one of those powers?

Sovereignty vs Global Finance

How can anyone make the case re sovereign states/countries in 2011 when all states on Earth are nowadays so intertwined via finance?

Even re the potential for sovereignty at superstate, eg EU, level?

How?

Is de-globalisation of the free movement of capital a way? Ie erection of walls for capital instead of immigrants.

EU & Eurozone "naked" against global winds (or whims)?

While xenophobia tries to scapegoat immigrants:

Are the EU and its Eurozone defenceless vis-a-vis the global financials winds (or whims)?

Are they also defenceless vis-a-vis the global hikes in the prices of energy and staple foods?

Can the EU do something about them? Does it have the will to (via real union)?

Time we start talking of EU or Eurozone or EUroplus "sovereignty"?

Nationalism vs Cosmopolitanism or Earth Sovereignty

"May you live in interesting times" was actually an Ancient Chinese curse! These days, since Friday, we are all Japanese (to paraphrase JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner"). Shocking events since Friday, the earthquakes, the tsunamis and last but not least, radiation! News these days are more dramatic than most scary film scenarios.

Among many other things, they have prompted protests re the use of nuclear energy in France, stress tests of the plans in Germany demanded by Angela Merkel and an EU stress test of nuclear plants initiative.

Can the EU work as "one" on this? Or is it losing whatever community spirit it had in previous decades due to the emergence of nationalism in recent years?

National vs Natural:

"Splitting up? The re-nationalization of Europe" is the topic of a most interesting article in Eurozine based on a discussion between Andriy Shevchenko and David Van Reybrouck. A must read, IMO!

1-2 points from the article (which I fully recommend as food for thought):

1) On the 23 languages in the EU: "And it means that there is no common forum. There is no European public space"

2) Also read how France managed to create French identity in less than 64 yrs!

Via the imposition of French as the single/only language in France, in the 1850s!

IMO, Cosmopolitanism will be "enforced" in EUrope and the rest of the world by Earth's Nature & its "events", ie Nature will defeat nationalism. Because earthquakes (like the ones the Japan) and the resulting tsunamis, volcanos (eg as the one in Iceland and its recent effect on most of Europ), birds (that the flu they may carry), CO2 and radiation pollution etc do not require passports or visas, they have no "respect" for national borders, sovereignty or identities. They remind us that we all 6.9 billion live on the same vessel. These realisations will defeat nationalism and re-activate universalism or cosmopolitanism (citizenship of the world).

Plus what good is one country's no nukes policy if a few miles across the water or land, its neighbour has located one of its own nuclear energy plants?

Plus IMO the issue of use of nuclear energy in the EU could be the topic of the first ever EU citizens initiative. The kind of topic that will unite the EUropean public opinion or Society. Energy: The answer is in the wind and under the sun!

Real catastrophes:

On Monday, FN President Marine Le Pen toured a centter for illegal migrants on Italy's Lampedusa island. "I have come to express my real concern on the ground. The European Union does not have any solution. We are going to see a real catastrophe and the EU is impotent" she said, inter alia (Yahoo! xtra news, AAP).

My comment re "real catastrophe": The ageing EU has capacity & wealth enough for citizens & immigrants. Real catastrophes are earthquakes, volcanos, nuclear pollution etc!

Real internationalists:

"Euroscepticism: liberal, modern, internationalist, moderate and cross-party" is the title of Daniel Hannan's opinion piece in the Telegraph on March 15! For sure!!!!

According to tweet today by the EU Commissioner Mrs Viviane Reding, there are about 16 million international couples (13% out of 122 million couples) in the EU. Maybe they and their children are the main drivers of EUropean identity.

In the meantime, "World braces for Japan economic hit" is the title of an insightful article by Ben White in Politico (politico.com) today. Inter alia, he points out that in January Japan held nearly $886 billion in Treasury securities while China $1.2 trillion US (some 4 times the ones held by UK investors). But IMO this is no time for Economics. As humans, we must focus on Japan and the Japanese people and all others in Japan, the heroes working inside the tainted plants, and maybe also think how some technology is good for humankind whereas other is not. And how for an economy to exist, humans are needed. IMO our era is too financial. Is it also too technological?

Only one economics piece: According to RTE Business today, "The European Commission has proposed a common system of working out the tax base of businesses operating in the EU".
Plus also today, the ratings agency Noddy's downgraded Portugal's sovereign debt rating from A1 to A3.

Not very human-centered times!

Approx. 205 million of the world's population were out of work in 2010, according to recent figures from the United Nations. This means that the EU has 11% of the world's unemployed while it has 7% of the world population (0.5 vs 6.9 bn)

Recent Eurostat stats:

Eurostat 1st estimate: Q4 of 2010 Eurozone and EU employment up by 0.1% vs Q3 2010. +0.3% in both vs Q4 of 2009.

Eurostat: January 2011 compared with December 2010 Industrial production up by 0.3% in Eurozone. Up by 0.6% in EU

Industrial Relations, what Industrial Relations?

The Industrial Relations in Europe Conference. The conference, 17-18 March in Brussels, aims to present and discuss the issues raised in the 2010 Industrial Relations in Europe report with an audience of social partners, academics and representatives of the Member States.

Every two years the European Commission produces an Industrial Relations in Europe report, which provides an overview of industrial relations developments in Europe for the previous two-year period. The 2010 edition is the sixth report in the series.

Around 150 participants will be invited to the event, which will consist of four panel sessions each devoted to one aspect of the report:

Session I - Industrial Relations in Europe in the 21st century's first decade
Session II – Negotiating the crisis: the actors of social dialogue
Session III – Industrial relations outcomes: overcoming the crisis
Session IV – The possible contribution of social partners to the Europe 2020 strategy

The conference, as the report itself, will focus on a review of industrial relations in times of economic crisis and on the role of social dialogue in achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

IMO, with a conservative majority in the European Parliament (EPP plus the ECR (Tories etc)) & the EU Commissioners' College and the various deficit and inflation hawks around Europe (not least in Germany), industrial relations are bound to be suffering in the EU and many national levels these days. See also the Eurozone "competitiveness pact".

Time to talk about the sovereignty of Europe from China, USA, Russia, et al

BBC News this morning reports that "The Chinese government, which is sitting on $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, has ample amounts of cash to fund loans which help promote its strategic objectives."

$2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves! Enough to "buy" the world, including US & Europe?

The European Union is being built el cheapo, ie on a measly budget. Is it now being "sold" to China, el cheapo? EUropeans must understand that!

Time to talk about the sovereignty of EUrope! EU independence from China, Russia, USA, et al via full Union!

That is what Mrs Merkel, M. Sarkozy, all leaders of EU countries, even MM Cameron & Clegg, must explain to the voters/taxpayers!

This responsibility, of major historical proportions, also lies with all political parties, media & opinion makers, in Germany & around the EU.

Some thoughts re Independence and Sovereigny in 2010+ (on the occasion of July 4)

What factors define independence or sovereignty in 2010+?

Legislative independence from others? (eg "Brussels", a popular topic in England)? But then how about international law (eg trade agreements being a topic of debate in the US these days)?

Energy autarky?

Capital autarky? Do foreign investments and/or trade deficit undermine sovereignty? Should countries make a distinction between investment by private vs state foreign investors?

Yet, unlike people & goods, pollution (CO2 or nuclear), birds, the wind, volcanic ash, earthquakes, etc do not need permissions to cross borders.

Once upon a time a city was the optimal size of a state - country. What Is the optimal size today? Continental? Global (planetary)?


PS. What about the independence of a country and the global economy from speculative global finance?

Sovereignty in 2010+ terms

Decisions re self/household, company, country require effective awareness of both internal and external systemics and dynamics. Are you aware how economic, financial, political, policy and other systemics in the world affect your household, your company, your country?

How many households, companies, countries have the ability to adapt or capitalise on global and regional new systemics, dynamics, trends? IMO this ability of a country to adapt or capitalise on global & regional new systemics, dynamics, trends constitutes "Sovereignty" in 2010+

In search of consistency in economic and political thinking

Since my last entry, May 19, the "plot" has thickened even further in daily, 24/24 "The Global Finance, Economics and Politics Show". The US Senate has passed after all a "sweeping" bill reforming financial regulation (I have yet to be convinced how sweeping the bill is, especially in covering all financial activities). A House of Reps bill exists already and now these two have to be reconciled and then voted on, to pass. We shall see.

The unilateral German ban on naked short selling of certain types of sovereign financial instruments has received many comments, all over the world, some quite critical (see eg "Germany Tries to Save the Euro — All by Itself" on Time.com on May 21st and "Angela Merkel's mistake: Battling the financial markets", a Washington Post editorial on May 22nd).

One should note that her speech at the German Lower House on either late hours of May 18 or morning of May 19 (I have not been able to exactly confirm when the speech took place or find a full text of her speech) includes mentions, some a tad rough/not detailed enough, to many policy initiatives that either the world (via G20 - but is that a world governance body?) or the EU or the Eurozone or Germany alone should do.

One of the criticisms that she has received is that she is wrong to describe things as a battle of the politicians against the markets. I happen to agree with Mrs Merkel on that account (see my guest article in New Europe on May 16).

Why (do I agree with Angela Merkel on the "battle" issue)? Because while the markets (financial & other) have a role to play in life, that does not include ruling or governing (ie Agorocracy instead of Democracy).

Because while there are many (even too many) "bad" (badly designed, too bureaucratic, too complex, etc) laws and policies produced by elected governments, I am not of the view (as a centrist) that they can be replaced by"the laws of the markets". In other words, while I studied applied decision sciences (at MIT and Northwestern, BS and MS) and have an MBA as well with emphasis on Finance (INSEAD 1990), I'm not a believer in "the markets know best" religion or dogma. The markets are merely a tool, an imperfect one, neither wise or rational in its behavior as a system.

I think that:

Economic globalisation has to be balanced with /checked by the globalisation of Democracy (that means a world parliament of elected reps of the people and world government). Of course this "world" would exclude a portion of the number of countries and people who do not wish such union, in spite of all the humanistic and other rationales for it (see previous posts of mine on globalisation and its pros and cons in this blog).

How about the nation-state?
I think that rationales that focus on national sovereignty, to be consistent, should also advocate full de-globalisation of trade, finance/capital, etc. That full package would make sense, ie be consistent (Note: Maybe even a return to city-states (as in Ancient Greece or Italian Renaissance, eg Athens, Sparta, Florence, Venice, etc)? Nah!).

An a la carte approach to either national sovereignty (see my posts on sovereignty) or globalisation happen to not only be rationally inconsistent; what is more, they undermine or underplay the rights of humans while they are in favor of the freedoms of capital and (in many cases of sovereignty rationales, goods as well).

Humans deserve, by "birthright" the freedom to live and work (almost) anywhere on OUR planet they wish to as along as they abide to Constitution(s) and laws, pay taxes and social security contributions, etc. Being a citizen of the world is not a privilege for the rich, the political refugees and the PhDs (see eg US immigration policies, but these apply more or less (less as in eg PhDs and green card "lottery") in most countries that are nevertheless members of the WTO and thus "value" the freedom of goods and capital).

Now, back to the EU. IMO a full Union or US of Europe is the way forward, and if the EMU/Euro part of the existing treaty needs to be re-opened and negotiated to include some of Mrs Merkel's proposals re stricter fiscal discipline, one might as well go for a full union new Treaty: One that includes Economic and Fiscal, as well as Political and even military union (so that Greece and other members eg can feel safe from external threats and thus spend less on defense (thus make it more feasible to observe fiscal discipline)).

Because I have come to realise that the structural fault of the European integration process is that instead of starting with political integration leading to union, in the 1950s, they started with economic instead (in the form of the "European Economic Community - EEC or "Common Market"). That happened, back in the 50s, because, regrettably, of all countries, France (its Parliament, August 1954) blocked the creation of a European Defence Community (thus killing the the European Political Community project as well) leading instead to EEC (an economic one). The idea was I guess similar to that of the Bush Jr administration in that economic integration promotes Democracy and integration (or common standards in Bush's case) in other areas. It seems that this "model" has not worked too well, in any of its versions, the European or the Bush Jr. one!

More thoughts on "national sovereignty"

National sovereignty sounds a great concept, vaguely put, but how is it achieved in 2010 reality?

For example, is it by taking back law making power from the EU as the new UK government plans to do?

While David Cameron wants to remove the application of the EU Working Time directive in the UK, Reuters reports "Memo to boss: 11-hour days are bad for the heart" (read the Reuters story here)

Does a sovereign nation allow inward investment that is controlled by foreign governments?

What does a sovereign nation do when another nation builds nuclear power plant near their border? What kind of walls does it erect to be safe (Turkey and Russia agreed today to build a nuclear powerplant in Turkey, near its Aegean coast)? Plus sick birds, CO2 pollution, volcanic ash, etc, do not have to have a passport or visa to cross borders, do they? How does that affect real national sovereignty?

Plus, dear PM of the UK, "sovereign nations" do not form governments under the pressure of what the "markets" will think, do they?

What I am trying to say is that one cannot be selective in one's sensitivities re "national sovereignty".


----------------

Appendix:


".... 9. Relations with the EU

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor ..."

A la carte sovereignty?

Funny (?) how sovereignty is being used as basis for views on such a pick and choose way in many issues in UK, the EU - Europe, the US and other countries these days!

IMO genuine #sovereignty means not only "no immigration" and "jobs for citizens" but also NO to foreign: investors, debt, products, services, SWFs + NO to international agreements (eg WTO) or memberships of any bonding nature (UN, ECHR, COP, etc). Not a la carte!

And of course, No to exports as well!

UK Sovereignty considerations

I don't understand why Tory Eurosceptic Douglas Carswell doesn't want Lisbon to come into force and then call for a referendum on UK EU membership.

If the Common Market is indeed what the majority of the British voters want why not use the Lisbon exit-clause and then join EFTA - EEA?

The Lisbon exit-clause provides the UK with the most powerful national sovereignty tool, so why all the fuss re the effects of EU laws on UK sovereignty?

Food for thought:

Should David Cameron also propose referendum for the UK's WTO membership and/or any agreement in the Doha WTO trade talks?

Should David Cameron also propose referendums for every new sovereign fund investment in the UK?

"Tories vs the EU", season X episode Y!

Post ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty, a new chapter in the Tories vs EU soap opera is on.

Here are some points and observations re the events of the last 2-3 days:

1) Anti-EU Europeans and "Eurosceptics", in the UK and around the EU, should love instead of fear the new Lisbon Treaty, because of its Exit-Clause that allows and provides for the process by which a member state may leave, on its own will, the EU (such clause did not exist in the EC and EU before)!

2) Why would they not to? Only if one was to assume that they prefer the EU to turn back into a mere Common Market, and that they realise that if #UK leaves the EU, it will lose much in investment and many other ways.

3) The "strategy" of many political parties in the UK re the EU reminds me of an episode of the good old "Yes Minister" (or YPM) TV series: Stay in the EC to make sure it does not succeed! lol

Now re David Cameron's speech re the EU:

4) David Cameron, if the Tories win the spring general election, will propose a UK Sovereignty law. But that begs the question: How does one define the term in 2010? Will it include sovereign wealth funds, for example?

5) Philosophical: Sovereignty or "National Interest"? (compare and contrast)

6) Cameron: The Tories will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum!

7) Cameron: At the general election, the Tories will challenge the other political parties to accept the "referendum lock" and pledge never to reverse it!

8) What steady and unaccountable intrusion of the EU into almost every aspect of British lives is David Cameron talking about? Does the UK not get effective representation of its interests and views via a Commissioner (usually with a key portfolio), so many MEPs as well Ministers with many votes in the Council of Ministers?

9) Cameron: ".. unlike many other EU countries (Ed. Note: that have a national Constitution), we have no explicit legal guarantee that the last word on our laws stays in Britain ..". Well, then maybe it is high time for the UK to establish its own Constitution and solve part of Cameron's et alteri sovereignty loss fears/concerns?

10) Can a UK "Sovereignty Law" replace the absence of a UK Constitution?

11) Cameron to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation (aka the Social Protocol" of Maastricht Treaty) that Tony Blair accepted during his PMship!

12) The Tories want a complete UK opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights!

13) The third area where a Tory government will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice

14) Key question: How does Mr. Cameron plan to "convince" the other 26 to give back those powers to the UK (Social, Justice, etc)?

15) Cameron: "European integration is not a one way street and that powers can be returned from the EU to its member countries.." Indeed, the best way: use the exit-clause provided by the Lisbon Treaty!

16) LibDems/Ed Davey: Cameron has already lead his party into the lunatic wilderness in Europe (Ed. Note: by leaving the EPP group in the E. Parliament) now he wants to take Britain there too!

17) The way Cameron is setting things up would seem to me that a vote for the Tories in the next election = vote for exit from the EU?

18) Philosophical: Real Sovereignty vs the perception of Sovereignty

and finally:

19) IMO the ability of a member to leave the EU (exit-clause) that the ne Treaty offers is the Ultimate Tool of Real Sovereignty of the UK and all 27 members!


PS. According to the Guardian, the French Europe minister, Pierre Lellouche, one of the most Anglophile members of Sarkozy's government according to the Guardian, says David Cameron's pledge to reclaim EU powers is 'pathetic' and will leave Britain isolated (and much more). OMG, the next episode is built up as most "dramatic".

Sovereignty in the era of alleged globalisation: philosophical considerations

IMO harmonisation of even the personal tax and social security systems are needed for real EU Single Market, one that works for the SMEs (and people)

Thus:

IMO common or single markets or even trade lead inevitably to political union between participating countries

Hence:

1) WTO (World Trade Organisation) membership should lead in eventual political union between member countries, same for the EU

2) the only way IMO to preserve national sovereignty is to abstain from trade (economic fortress model)

3) the other way is "shared sovereignty" via effective representation in EU, WTO, etc etc thus, again, political union

National sovereingty in 2009 terms

What is REAL national sovereignty in 2009 (instead of 1509 or 1909) terms?

re-thinking "comparative advantage"?

The key words are:

Policy Philosophy Economics Globalization

And the thought:

Re-thinking "comparative advantage"?

example: June 2009: According to the German Finance Minister, Germany must begin to reduce its dependence on foreign trade

Food for thought?

Globalisation pros and cons - food supply and demand

economic modeling and policy: lessons from the 2008 world prices crisis in staple foods?