Showing posts with label CIA Factbook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA Factbook. Show all posts

Thursday, 24 January 2013

The Common Market and the EU

Let me start by saying that I think we should remain a strong part of Europe, and that Europe is also stronger if the UK remains part of the European family.

In a 'landmark' speech; which I urge you all to read, the 'State of the Union' address of 1941 President Roosevelt said inter alia:

..there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic system are simple: 

They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others

Jobs for those who can work

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privileges for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living....


He also set out the four essential human freedoms:

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere  in the world.

The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear – which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion than no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.


And in 1946 in another 'landmark' speech made by Sir Churchill at the University of Zurich, that I have posted about previously - The Council of Europe said:

...Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe....

I am going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter...


And in 1949 he said:

Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. But Britain cannot be thought of as a single state in isolation. She is the founder and centre of a world wide Empire and Commonwealth. We shall never do anything to weaken the ties of blood, of sentiment and tradition and common interests which unite us with other members of the British family of nations.

But nobody is asking us to make such a desertion. For Britain to enter a European Union from which the Empire and Commonwealth would be excluded would not only be impossible but would, in the eyes of Europe, enormously reduce the value of our participation. The Strasbourg recommendations [that is the first session of the Council of Europe] urged the creation of an economic system which will embrace not only the European States, but all those other States and territories elsewhere which are associated with them. 
(Source: Churchill by Roy Jenkins)

In 1957 the European Economic Community was formed, which the UK joined much later in 1974. The Treaty of Rome says in Articles 1 to 3:

ARTICLE 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.

ARTICLE 2

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.

ARTICLE 3

For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;

(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;

(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;


(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;

(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.


You see the above,  I hope, sort of throws a light on this idea that somehow we where tricked into or were lied about the European Union. As you can see what is sometimes conviently forgotten is that many things that people object to, such as movement of people goes hand in hand with an economic union, that for instance the free movement of people came about because of economic union, read Articles 48 to 51.

And let's be clear the economic union did concern itself with social issues see Articles 117 to 122.

Put simply our prosperity and peace depends on common policies with Europe, and we would be worse off outside it, and Europe would be worse off without the UK as part of it.

In a previous post I pointed out why we cant do a Norway... Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

And as for Switzerland this is what the CIA Factbook has to say:

"The Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with the EU's, to enhance their international competitiveness, but some trade protectionism remains, particularly for its small agricultural sector. The fate of the Swiss economy is tightly linked to that of its neighbors in the euro zone, which purchases half of all Swiss exports."

As for referendums which seems the to be in thing these days, aren't elections where you gain a fresh mandate? - this is what a Commission of the Conduct of Referendums had to say in a report in 1996:

....only 25 years ago referendums were regard as unconstitutional; they had no place in the political process....

The principal message of [their] report was:

"..referendums cannot provide a panacea for major political problems; but they can significantly assist governments before controversial legislation is introduced, and they can give greater legitimacy to new policies after legislation had been enacted..."

And in their lies the horn of dilemma for David Cameron, he knows that the UK should remain an essential part of Europe - but he also knows that his party is divided on the matter. Labour on the other hand should remain firm and say no to a referendum and seek a fresh mandate at the next election, by pledging to remain part of the European Union and grow and strengthen ties with it.

That is why UKIP and others want a referendum, because they know at the election ballot box they can't win.

I fear that in order to save the Conservative Party, they are willing to risk the unity and prosperity of the UK, and what of the consequence of this decision on next years Scottish referendum...you know one argument having being 'don't vote for independence cause that'll mean you'll be out of the EU...if now it has to be amended.... but you needn't worry we might be all out of the EU after 2017.

As the New York Times said recently:

"Domestic politics have regularly trumped broader European concerns throughout the six-decade-long history of the union and its predecessor organizations, to the dismay of those who want to see Europe live up to a commitment in the 1957 Treaty of Rome for an “ever closer union.”

But Mr. Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum on European Union membership threatens to elevate national political calculations over common interests to an extent that has alarmed even countries that often share British concerns."

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

Norwegian oil field

There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.

Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."

But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of  Scotland.

The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.

It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.

Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.

Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.

No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Time to hold the finance industry to account.

Have you, like me got a feeling that we have been treated as mugs by the finance industry for far too long, and that politicians were acquiescence to their wrongdoing.

As I said a few days before this is far more than just Bob Diamond alone. The latest scandal to hit the big banks (you remember vital to saving SME's) is selling complex products to, as the FSA puts it 'non-sophisticated' customers.

Not forgetting the Libor fiasco, which now transpires that Mervyn King, Bank of England Governor, wanted reformed back in 2008 but the British Banker's Association said no (Hat Tip The Times). Noticed how quiet they have become these days?

There's also the miss-selling of insurance products, endowment mortgage's, lack of investment in IT, the infamous RBS computer crash to name just a few...and you get a definite feeling that it's far more than Bob Diamond alone.

In essence the whole culture and practices of the finance industry need to be called into question, and that will not be achieved by a narrow inquiry into the setting of the Libor rates. We know what went wrong there, to paraphrase TV it was 'When Self Regulation went bad'. I suppose a similar reason for setting up the Leveson Inquiry, that self regulation of the newspapers had also gone wrong.

So please sign the following e-petition:

Public inquiry into wrongdoing and ethics of bankers

"We the undersigned call for an independent, judicial public enquiry into fraud, wrongdoing and ethics of British banks, their management and their staff, and the role of the British Bankers Association. The terms of reference of this inquiry should also include the manipulation of interest rates on about £225 trillion of assets. The inquiry must have full powers to compel witnesses to appear on oath, and to obtain all forms of evidence."

Though, we cant escape blame totally either; whilst we may have been oblivious to the full scale of their shenanigans, we nevertheless were all to happy to have free banking, plenty of credit and buy now pay later deals. We all went on a big spending spree.

As we are kept being reminded UK public debt is nearly $2 trillion. But consider this - according to CIA Factbook the UK total public and private debt owed to nonresidents last year was $9,836,000,000,000. That's nearly $10 trillion (or $158,611 per person living in UK) compared to USA total external debt of $14,710,000,000,000.

I cant really get my mind around such numbers, one thing for sure we cant carry on as we are. We may have to pay for banking services in the future, credit may be more expensive, but if this means a more stable economy so be it.

To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, this is not the end of the consumerism. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Wales too small - what about Uruguay?


Yesterday I said that in my humble opinion Elin Jones AM would be a very good leader of Plaid Cymru.

I mentioned the dreaded 'I' word independence, which we shouldn't be afraid to discuss. I said "I do not think independence for Wales would be right as things stand."

This morning I listened to a conversation on the Today program on Radio 4. They were talking about the football game tonight, between England and Wales, and the Radio 4 chap said something along the lines of “why hasn't Wales qualified for any major football tournament since 1958. Take Uruguay for example, whose population is also just above 3 million and the amount of times they have qualified, and they recently won the Copa America."

And that made me think. One argument put forward by many against independence for Wales is - its too small.

Now I know you cant really compare Wales and Uruguay, especially if you believe some who say that Wales is the poorest Country in Europe. Somehow I don't think Uruguay is the poorest South American Country.

The CIA World Factbook says in a short history of Uruguay:

Montevideo, founded by the Spanish in 1726 as a military stronghold, soon took advantage of its natural harbor to become an important commercial center. Claimed by Argentina but annexed by Brazil in 1821, Uruguay declared its independence four years later and secured its freedom in 1828 after a three-year struggle. The administrations of President Jose BATLLE in the early 20th century established widespread political, social, and economic reforms that established a statist tradition. A violent Marxist urban guerrilla movement named the Tupamaros, launched in the late 1960s, led Uruguay's president to cede control of the government to the military in 1973. By yearend, the rebels had been crushed, but the military continued to expand its hold over the government. Civilian rule was not restored until 1985. In 2004, the left-of-center Frente Amplio Coalition won national elections that effectively ended 170 years of political control previously held by the Colorado and Blanco parties. Uruguay's political and labor conditions are among the freest on the continent.

And in an overview of Uruguay's economy say:

Uruguay's economy is characterized by an export-oriented agricultural sector, a well-educated work force, and high levels of social spending. Following financial difficulties in the late 1990s and early 2000s, economic growth for Uruguay averaged 8% annually during the period 2004-08. The 2008-09 global financial crisis put a brake on Uruguay's vigorous growth, which decelerated to 2.9% in 2009. Nevertheless, the country managed to avoid a recession and keep positive growth rates, mainly through higher public expenditure and investment, and GDP growth exceeded 8% in 2010.

Just in case you missed it, a GDP growth of 8% in 2010, making them 14th in the list of country comparisons, compared with the UK GDP growth of the same year of 1.3% putting us in 163rd place on the list.

And the Country's main exports:

beef, soybeans, cellulose, rice, wheat, wood, dairy products; wool

Again I emphasize you cant really compare countries, as Paul Williams (aka The Druid) has pointed out on numerous occasions, but to me at least it disproves the argument that Wales is too small to be an independent Country in terms of population. Its really down to the question of whether we have the economy to sustain us, as an independent state.

I would also like to thank Rob Davies, 'The outspoken columnist who tells it how it is' of the Daily Post, for his support for independence - ok maybe not - but all you have to do is change a few words from his rant of today and you get from the section headed 'Old Boundaries' (were he argues to retain the 22 welsh Councils - which in reality don't follow old boundaries) the following:

"At [national] level, [..] government works best following ancient [..] boundaries to which many people still retain loyalty. Many of these are based on natural divisions such as rivers. Far more people will engage with [governments] if they represent the actual geographical terrain they call home."

I also recommend you read an article by Adam Price, which was published in the Huffington Post titled - 'Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense' on 2 August 2011, by following this link: Adam Price - Huffington Post