The tuition issue will probably always haunt Nick Clegg

Paddy Ashdown's 2012 decision  to lead on the LibDems' General Election campaign is great but I am afraid that the damage done to the credibility of the LibDems due to the tuition issue will, alas, probably always haunt Nick Clegg.

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.

The UK - Ireland tie, post EU UK

If UK leaves can Ireland keep the free access to UK? Well, should be No, but see the Norway situation with EU Scandics. But NOR is member of the EEA and of Schengen.

But if UK is part of EEA then it will still have to let Greeks, Poles, Spaniards et al work in the UK! Are Cameron (and even Miliband after his recent apologies and other views re intra-EU migration) aware of that?

The UK EU debate is over! Europhiles were largely a no show!

The UK EU debate is in its 88th minute and the Eurosceptics are ahead 5 nil. It's over. Has been for long. Eurosceptics have for many years almost unopposed, dominated the British current/public affairs scene on Europe in the UK. With or without of referendum, the UK has by now effectively "turned" anti-EU. A surprising Yes to EU vote in a ref would not change that, at least until younger, pro-EU Brits become the norm, if ever. The EU26 have a lot to lose from a UK that remains in the EU, eg preventing the rest to move ahead, eg via an IGC. At the late stage, the EU 26 would, alas/I am afraid, be better off with an non-EU UK than more years of UK whining re "Europe" or "Brussels". I call them as I see them not as I want them to be, UK!

Systemics and Dynamics Live NP Blog, October 31, 2012

Read bottom up to follow the flow:

Evening:

Euro crisis/Troika:
I thought memorandums were supposed to be brief, not as brief as executive summaries, but brief.

There seem to be 2 divergent views re the effect of Sandy on US economy: a) disruption of the recovery b) growth stimulus effect by money spend on the damages, multiplied by a greater than 1.0 factor. As per electoral effects, some think it may prove beneficial for Obama and Dems if seems presidential in his dealing with Sandy effects is deemed effective. Or could backfire. Will it also restore some faith of people in "government" and make collective esprit (eg health care) more popular. Guess we shall see.

Early morning:

EU/Euro/econ/fin crises:
Many admire the Iceland "model" of dealing with it. But they should recall it has a population of 320,000, a total area of 103,000 km2 out there in the Atlantic and a volcano!

More philosophical:
The problem with parents raising their kids with prince/princess aka noble values is that unless they also give them a Principauté, they are in for a rough ride in the "streets" of life.

Philosophical:
Hard times for "princes" and "princesses" (not the real ones, the other ones). Also hard for vagabonds, though. Unless in warmer climates.

Jobs/Career:
For decades now, searching for a job had become a job. In recent years, it has become a career.

On the British EU debate (and on Germany)

In the Telegraph today, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes that: "Britain has left the European Union in all but name". Worth a good read.

Here is my take on the subject:

1) Are these self-fulfilling prophecies promoted as fact? But if it happens, it's a great opportunity for a continental EU member to become an English speaking hub of Europe.

2) But is the UK indeed on its way out of the EU? The UK's main philosophical objection to the EU is: Too many laws = no laws. But is the UK that different? The UK's real main problem imo it that it is (still) used to making its own rules/laws and applying them on others too. A trait Germany has picked up, too, in recent years. Both suffer imo from lack of confidence in using logic and western world style syllogistical argumentation to convince others re their POV (point of view).

That absence of syllogistical/argumentation style is imo reflected in the comments by some with respect to the style and content not only of the UK EU debate but also the Scottish UK debate.

3) Imo, British voters need to be asked if the EU27 is a place they feel part of (in many ways) or not.

If they would rather work/live/do business etc in/with the USA, Canada, Australia+NZ instead of Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, etc, then imo, the,UK should leave the EU. It is in effect a psychological, philosophical and strategic question, not a matter of static numbers, eg how many Brits live in the rest of the EU or how many non-British EU citizens live and work in the UK. That line of thinking misses imo the dynamic issue and the essence of the debate.

Time the UK elites stop badmouthing the EU if ...

Reality check: Merkel et al finally realised it was time they stopped badmouthing Greece to the German people. Time the UK elites stop doing the same with the EU/Brussels to the UK voters, if they realise this:

With a Euro in crisis, the UK may be able to market itself on its own merits to world investors (as opposed to as a gate to the EU Single Market until now) but, if the EU/Europlus pull off some kind of political union step forward, then where will that leave a non-EU UK in the world investors' map?

Those who sow wind, reap storms. Merkel realised that. Cameron and Hague know it too. But do they have the long term interest of the UK at heart to try and possibly pay the price of telling the British people the truth re "Europe"? Or maybe they do not have confidence in their ability to influence UK media and public opinion the way Merkel?

More analysis on this topic and strategic implications available upon request.

European myths and real fears: Time to face the truth

Applying logic consistently can lead to some very hardcore argumentation in European Affairs. Especially when coupled with humanism.

Here we go (based on thoughts originally posted via my Twitter account, today):

Xenophobia and "paymasterism" are evidence of insecurity due to policy failures by mostly national policy-makers.

E.g. Angela Merkel and Co. blamed Greeks and other South Europeans to cover up for her own policy failures in 2005-2012. Except for very recently.

Plus,  the EU has always been used by national politicians as a scapegoat for their failures but not their successes.

So who should be in more fear of losing their jobs and who should lose them? People or policy makers. Desperate policy makers produce even more desperate policies. Not to mention desperate (for ratings hence ad revenue) media.

So, for voters, focusing at national and local level is in a way a natural reaction, whereas the wise reaction is to focus at Euro, EU level and beyond.

Instead of helping the man/woman in streets feel a tad of stability via their policies, policy makers have been doing the opposite.

Note also that 2 months of somewhat positive propaganda by Merkel and friends re Greece seems (see polls in Germany) to have managed to partly counter 2+ years of negative propaganda. Is that scary or good? Or both?

That is the real state of the EU in 2012. It is time we start discussing those things, not only the agenda the mainstream traditional media and social media set.

Example:

People in NW and North Europe are panicking and blaming foreigners because, imho, they know their national exceptionalisms are a hot air result of propaganda - narratives. They are in real fear. Because they feel/know that their economies are way more un-competitive and cruel than anyone would admit. They are scared of losing their accumulated privileges and fear more than South Europeans, because they know their societies are more cruel than in South Europe.

Yes what I am proposing, after roaming around the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands (NL) in the past 5 weeks and lots of talking with people from all walks of life, observing systemics and dynamics and lots of thinking, is that the real reason Dutch, Finns, Germans, Belgians, Brits are reacting the way they are is: they are scared. Even more scared than South Europeans.

Take a good look for example at the "streets" of any UK, NL or Belgian city. People are "bowling alone" (much more than Greeks or Spaniard are "bowling alone") and they know it.

That is I propose the main way to interpret eg the local results in Antwerp.

So whereas Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy need real policies badly, the NL, Belgium, the UK, Germany, Finland need real policies even more badly. And more humanism (and that is a matter/task for society and thought/opinion leaders, not policy makers per se).

On the other hand, imo what Greeks and Spaniards should really worry about is not labour market reforms but of having lost part of their traditional humanism. Because once that is lost, no laws or rules can after all restore that. And liberalism needs humanism in order to work. Every system does, but liberalism (in the European not US sense of the term) does even more (that is of course why Romney and Ryan should not win the elections in the US, the country where the term "bowling alone" was invented).

The Greek and Spanish labour markets are already a "Kaiadas" (see Ancient Sparta) even without labour market reforms, so what worse can reforms do than admit that reality?

Plus Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians should look at their national and local "champions" and elites and ask them: What have you done for me lately? In a way they are. In a way.

Being pro-EU doesn't mean being pro European Commission, pro EU Council, etc. It means being pro the common interests of 500,000,000. Because in the world systemics and dynamics of the epoch, mainly at continental and world level can effective solutions be formulated and implemented. But with a systems analysis approach that looks at the forest and at the trees at the same time. These are indeed testing times for policy makers.

The European media and social media should not focus on the symptoms (they do make for good copy, true) but at the diseases. I know it's hard.

Even more analysis on this complex topic and implications for policy makers, the civil society and economic operators at EU, Euro, national and local levels, is available upon request.

Europe's social volcano: NW Europe compared to Athens

Until when are NW Europeans going to continue living their lives in quiet desperation? Policies must alleviate pressures now! Imho that is.

Greeks and Spaniards are more extrovert, but if an already active social volcano erupts in NW Europe, I am afraid that Athens will seem a paradise by comparison.


Europe: In the old days there was America and its Ellis Island. In 2012, Mars? This time Europe must solve its problems w/o emigration to America, America or (intra-European or another Europe caused World) war.

PS. To what extent has war been replaced by trade and finance? Food for thought.

More analysis on this topic and implications for policy are available upon request. Contact me.

Is more Europe the answer to separatist dynamics in Flanders, Catalonia, Scotland?

I believe so.

European unification imo partly alleviated separatism pressures.

Lack of it fosters them, More Europe is the answer.

My take is that many of these separatism pressures/dynamics (must read: a very thought provoking analysis on current separatist dynamics in the EU, "Separatism is in the air as EU leaders prepare to meet in Brussels" today by Stephanie Gruner Buckley in qz.com) are due to lack of concrete unification progress at Euro/EU level.

Applying a systemics and dynamics approach, one could go as far as to speculate that, in a way, if Europe does not unite better, the next equilibrium in many cases may be not the national but the local almost city state level!

In any case, Europe's systemics are not working, at various levels (EU, Euro, national, etc). They need systems analysis fast!

PS. That inter alia means that national champions and elites that are fighting against European integration may soon find their status threatened by local ones. They have to consider joining the EU-wide competition even if that means more competition than they are used to, or decide how to compete with the local champions and forces. Food for thought.

PS2. The European Commission was imo right to "duck" questions on separatism in EU states today. It is not in its "competences" to have a view on the topic.

More analysis and strategic options (policy, business, etc) in  dealing with this dynamic, are available upon request.

What some people don't seem to get re the hard Euro

In the years of the hard Euro, ie when the Euro was (until relatively recently) quite high compared to the USD, the Yuan and other currencies of major trade partners (and tourist origins eg USA),  that  suffocated much of EZ business because it not only had a hard time exporting to non-Euro markets but also faced (when eg Euro was 1.4 or 1.5 USD) more fierce competition inside the Eurozone and even their own "national" markets.

So while interest rates for Eurozome member states were lower than past thus allowing them to borrow more (via sovereign bonds) than the pre-Euro years, they were still high enough (in order to stick to the 2% inflation target of the then ECB directorate) compared to US, UK and other central bank interest rates, for the Euro to be expensive Euro vis-a-vis USA, China, etc.

So while the budgets of Euro member states benefited from cheaper money, and maybe companies too, the price competitiveness of many Eurozone businesses (including tourist ones) took a severe, IMO, beating.

Is Germany a bull in the Eurozone's China Store?

Some thoughts of mine on PressEurop's very interesting report: Berlin still selling too much (14/8/2012)

1) The FAZ comments IMO, at best, show (let's call it) "non-systemic thinking".

2) Is Germany exporting too much or importing and in general consuming too little? Too little from the Eurozone?

3) In terms of trade surplus, Germany is a bull in a China Store. Funny thing is, Germany's inflation phobia makes China another bull in the Eurozone and EU's "stores"/mkts for goods.

4) Germany saves "a lot" which means it has to find outlets for its investments. No wonder Germany had invested "a lot" in the PIIGS (while selling "a lot" to them too). The rest is not "rocket science"!

5) But the strategic/systemic question is: Is Germany too big to be part of the EU/EZ but too small to be a power on its own? And if Germany is too small to be a world power on its own, what do that say for eg UK's ambitions? France, sometimes arrogant, nevertheless knows it needs "Europe". UK and Germany (and others) act as if they do not.

6) Marketing: What exactly is Germany exporting that the Eurozone (40%), EU (60%), the world, a) cannot substitute or b) always need/want?

7) So with Germany having cornered the high quality market, China the low price one & US the new tech one, what's left for (most of) the rest?

8) Problem not only that Berlin still selling too much but its policy/philosophy not selling (in many parts of Europe/EU/Eurozone)

The UK should leave the WTO instead of the EU!

The UK's June trade balance (goods and services) from £ billion -2.9 in 2011 to -4.3 in 2012! Without services, it would be worse!

The deficit in goods trade of the UK is greater with the rest of the world than with the EU (June 2012): -5.2 vs -4.9 (£ billion, source: ONS).

Also: June UK exports to EU fell 7.2%, but to rest of the world they fell 9.6%, thus debunking the myth that the UK is better off outside the EU and focusing on trade with the non-EU rest of the world!

So maybe the UK should leave the WTO instead of the EU!

Actually, since the UK is a member of the WTO directly and via the EU's membership, the UK should stay in the EU and convince it to leave the WTO (and replace it with existing and new bilateral agreements).

One way for the EU to move forward is ...

The main mistake of Maastricht Treaty was using EMU as step towards Political Union whereas full Political Union was/is actually a prerequisite for EMU (aka the Euro).


So how does one repair the mistakes of the Treaty of Maastricht? 


Well, not Merkel's (bull in a china shop) way, that's for sure!

I disagree with Westerwelle et al. The EU needs a new Treaty ASAP (amend EMU, steps towards political union, etc).

To avoid a UK veto to such move, the UK (and others?) could be offered the opportunity to leave the EU as the majority seems to want in Britain, but with a "good" (for the UK) special relationship of UK-EU as part of the "deal".

Just thinkin!

Searching for the centre

Both Britain and Greece (as well as other countries, including the US) urgently need a genuine centrist political party that can address the policy challenges of the era without ideological sclerosis, using right of centre and left of centre and other policy tools to solve real problems of real people, in the real economy, the real society, in an ever complicated EU and world (WTO, UN, etc).

Can the LibDems be that centrist party in Britain?  They can, but they are not and do they want to?

Europe Day 2012: May 6 instead of May 9?

Europe (EU) Day is on May 9 every year. But this year it seems that Europe (EU) day is May 6:

Why?

Because of the elections in France, Greece as well as Schleswig-Holstein; all there crucial not only for a national point of view but an EU (and Euroland) POV as well.

And if one takes account of the UK local elections, including London, of May 3, and other events of the week (see my European Calendar) then one could argue that this week Monday April 30th to May 6 is "Europe Week 2012".

PS. Of course, like other days, such a Valentine's Day, one could argue that in essence days like Europe (EU) Day are or they should be every day of the year!

PS2. Add to them the local elections in some 900 towns in Italy on Sunday and Monday.

What can European integration learn ...

1) What can European integration learn from the German Confederation (1815-66) and the German unification (1871)?

I mean both positive and negative lessons.

2) What can "united Europe" learn from the United Kingdom (1801-present)?

Instead of the UK arguing for fewer EU laws and more national laws it should ..

Instead of the British arguing for fewer EU laws and more national laws they should be arguing for fewer laws in general! Secular societes/polities have become too over-legislated and bureaucratised. Instead of the British arguing that, they want to leave or have the EU revert to a mere free trade area! Well, there is always EFTA for that, and of course, the WTO.

The EU is a single market and a real single market means uniform laws in everything, a single currency and a single polity (aka political union).

But uniformity of laws across the EU while it means virtually no national (member state) laws, it does not mean an overkill in legislation (which whether national or EU is a result of an interventionist culture).

Libertarianism treats people as supermen without need for laws, tax or state. Communism treats people are minors, with a state to protect them in everything. Neither is appropriate. The optiomal is somewhere in between, in the middle. That is what the UK should be pushing the EU for.

Liberal democracy in the UK and the Netherlands - LibDems and VDD - D66

In the Netherlands, the VVD part is a member of a very "conservative" government coalition between CDA-VVD with the support of the PVV. Some argue its the most conservative government in the Netherlands in 60 years.

The UK's Liberal Democrats are also in a coalition government in the UK (albeit without UKIP or BNP support).

In the Netherlands though there is another liberal democrat party, D66. Both VVD and D66 are members of ELDR and ALDE. So are the Liberal Democrats.


Which brings me to following thoughts:

The future of the UK's Liberal Democrats? The Dutch analogy-case.

There are 2 parties in the Netherlands that are members of the ELDR and ALDE: VVD and D66

The D66 (in its former name, Liberal Democratic Centre) spun off from the VVD, in 1962, formally in 1966 (hence the 66 in the D66).

The VVD was founded in 1948 and were joined by the Comité-Oud, a group of liberal members of the Labour Party (PvdA), led by Pieter Oud.

So the formation of the VVD resembles that of the UK Liberal Democrats by a merger of the Liberals and the SDP (which had spun off from Labour a few years earlier)!

In view of the cgov oalition of the LibDems with the Tories which was against what the grassroots of the partu wanted, maybe a split as in NL (in 1962/1966) is in the cards (of fate) for the LibDems too. Maybe. Maybe not. Only food for thought (call it an intellectual exercise if it makes you feel better about it).

Even a free trade area does not allow "polyamory" in trade, does it?

The other day I was having a discussion on current affairs and dynamics in Europe and the world with an economist friend. Mind you, yours truly is not an economist but an MBA with 2 more degrees (a BS and an MS in decision sciences).

During the discussion the topic of "customs unions" and "free trade areas" came up. My friend gave me a POV that has proved valuable food for thought: He argued that a customs union between let's say countries A, B and C, implies a clear intent by these three countries to trade primarily between them as opposed to a global scope in trade.

If that is true of a customs union (which is what the UK claims it joined in the 1973 EEC), a "common market" as my 50s plus barber in Brussels called the EEC back in 1992, then that is even more true of a "Single Market" (launched on 1/1/1993).

What does all this mean?

That members of the current EU, the Eurozone, even those who claim they openly want a "free trade area" Europe (UK Tories etc), have to de juris accept that all these are not compatible with a multi-lateral global free trade system (WTO, ex-GATT), that members of non only the EU but also EFTA, ASEAN, Mercosur and the emerging UNASUR must have, explicitly or at least implicitly, the will and view of trading mostly (to say the least) with their partners!

And what is more, if they do not, then they should not be a member of any such entity and rely exclusively on the WTO membership.

Thus:

a) If the UK does not want to export and import mostly within the EU27 Single Market, then it has no place in the EU
b) If Germany sees China and Russia as its key trade partners from now on, then it too has no place in the EU or its Eurozone.
and so on!

Thus, if my economist friend is right, membership in the EU or even as its old EEC or "common market" form presupposes a commitment to trade with mostly the other members (at the expense of global (WTO etc) trade).

Consider that!