economy, europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

The economy is the UK’s only care in global matters

o-TTIP-PROTESTS-LONDON-facebook

As the judgment day that is June 23rd fast approaches, the nature of Britain’s foreign policy and its international relations have never before been placed under greater scrutiny. The European Union referendum has meant intense discussion of UK parliamentary sovereignty, global spending, and the nation’s relationships with neighbouring states. But our nation’s ties with states located in Europe aren’t the only ones coming into question.

Past weeks have given ear to the dissonance regarding international affairs across the whole world – most specifically, in the USA. More often known as TTIP, the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between America and the EU is set to boost the global economy, but at a considerable price. Myriad MPs and activists have voiced concern in recent weeks, claiming that the new Atlantic agreement would put public service operations at risk of privatisation, reduce the UK’s financial regulatory powers, and that a robust, European, ethical framework would begin to break down.

What is driving the steady support for the introduction of TTIP is what has always driven the capitalist West – money. It is easy to see that TTIP is attractive from the outset, providing grand chances for the further stimulation of the US and EU economies. Experts have estimated that the agreement would mean a global financial boost of around $100m. The prospects of a stronger world economy are plausible, but cannot come at the expense of a great loss in parliamentary sovereignty to multinationals, and a loss of focus upon the global common good that the EU at least tries to instill. Numerous EU directives would become quickly overridden, and big businesses are sure to have a draconian power influence not only over parliament, but across all of society.

The truth is unravelling all too quickly. The rise in Euroscepticism, meaning an obvious rethink of Britain’s relationships with its neighbours, is showing that our global affairs are not based on camaraderie at all. Many of us do not identify as Europeans, and do not share the sense of community that helps to construct many states in the Eurozone. Innumerable pieces of legislation are born in and baptised by the EU, and it is clear that, for some, its collective direction has shaped our nation’s decision-making process a little too much. Political advantage and dialogue is not what Britain’s politicians seek from the likes of Merkel and Juncker anymore.

During the campaign leading up to 1973 – when Britain gained EU membership – one of the biggest cases in favour of the transition was the almost instantaneous economic advantage. Still, the economy lies at the heart of Britain’s colony in Europe. Neither peace nor teamwork are foremost here. Britain can’t have joined in order to work for the common good like many of those who signed up to the post-war European Community. The stubbornness of the British government over recent months, and from a large proportion of the British people, has made this blatantly obvious. Britain has gained all it wants to from the EU. Trading relationships for several decades have moved the nation back into the spotlight, and the nation’s politicians have maintained and increased the nature’s stature.

Perhaps the European Union has now politically exhausted the United Kingdom. Whilst it would secure increased sovereignty, if the UK votes to leave in just over three weeks’ time, it needs to ensure a back-up plan for its economy. Capitalist America is prime stomping ground, of course. Right-wingers are tired of the EU’s legislative infringement, a burden to a nation that seems to look primarily at its economic standpoint instead.

If Britain chooses to stay, a world of benefits is still available from all directions. But the tasks of interstate teamwork and the concessions that it commands are proving to be too much for vast numbers of national Eurosceptics. Britain and many of its people are willing to forego ethical standards set by the EU, and risk the security of vital public services – anything to ensure that the nation’s economic ballast does not take a hit.

The UK has always been a wily character when it comes to global affairs. Its position in the European Union was, from the start, one that was painstakingly scrutinised and adapted. Looking at the nation’s relationships abroad with a predominantly narrow, economic focus can explain not only the EU and TTIP quandaries, but also the controversial UK-led Saudi arms trade, and Britain’s closed door approach to the refugee crisis.

A devastating side effect of this highly capitalist, 100% economy focus is that any form of moral high ground is likely to disappear from Britain’s view of the political landscape. Neighbouring states and global organisations continue to allow Britain to meticulously negotiate its way into economic partnerships of all kind. In turn, buying into more agreements like TTIP and the EU, seeking only economic benefit, will only degrade the UK’s moral high ground when working on international matters.

Those who favour a Brexit on June 23rd choose to advocate for an odd but somewhat entertaining juxtaposition. The EU is said to be the world’s freest global marketplace. But whilst claiming that the economic case is the most important thing at stake during the EU debate, those backing Vote Leave are essentially supporting a major economic climb-down for the UK. TTIP may stimulate the economy to an extent, but it will take time to build up the success that the UK has had with Europe. Why leave what has been one of the UK’s most sturdy support bases for many decades?  For sure, a Brexit would mean returning to many controversial operations, create social, political and economic animosity all over the European continent, and significantly reduce Britain’s moral standards in both trade and manufacture.

Advertisements
Standard
Environment, UK Politics, World Politics

Solidarity will ensure that Britain wards off climate change

2015-12-15-1450217701-4796923-COP21finale.jpg

Next week, scores of international leaders will descend upon New York, finally ratifying 2015’s ambitious climate change agreement. Rising temperatures, health-degrading pollution and a fast diminishing stock of fossil fuels are just some of the issues which lie shrouded in the tormenting black clouds of climate change. Last year’s treaty, penned in Paris, saw myriad states commit to a collective effort aimed at reducing carbon emissions worldwide. It is thus evident that for many governments, environmental instability is a serious problem which faces their populations. It does seem, however, that for the British government, – among others – dealing with the consequences of modern practices is far too low down on the agenda.

In past months, an alarming plethora of environmental calamities has emerged. Extraction of fossil fuels and thick pollution in cities may not seem like such disasters at the moment. However, according to many a scientist, the effects will span much longer timescales than many would ever have believed. Only last week, NASA announced that the way the earth spins is taking an unprecedented turn for the worse – sorry – as a result of rapidly melting ice caps. Furthermore, it has been recently forecast that as much as $2.5tn of material assets which are essential to humanity could become destroyed due to rapid climate change. To top that, new surveys have today pinpointed numerous low-lying landscapes which may cease to exist as our oceans continue to swell. This really is no time to be joking. Climate change is fast taking its toll, populations around the world are placed at greater risk, and our race is becoming severely threatened.

It seems that protection from the possible havoc of climate change should be a government responsibility. The United Kingdom has been particularly sluggish in its efforts, and whilst long-term prosperity is key to national success, future generations will profoundly suffer unless the necessity of sustaining our existence is brought to the fore. Without long-term co-operation internationally, as well as the force that comes with EU membership, Britain seems in danger of becoming increasingly oblivious to growing environmental issues.

Casting an eye over Chancellor George Osborne’s latest budget, it is clear that the government’s gusto for tackling climate change is feeble. Whilst the Conservative administration continues its rhetoric, proclaiming that the imminent climate apocalypse is one of the greatest issues facing the nation, strong preventative measures are simply non-existent. In the 2016 budget alone, funding for tackling climate change was minute. Increases in dealing with flood prevention did materialise, but only very moderate investment has been given to renewable energy. Instead, nuclear energy, despite many experts warning that the source is not viable for the long-term, received a boost. Incentives for solar energy installations have been drastically cut, too. Cameron must be blustering. Environmental sustainability is not as high a national priority as it should be, a huge mistake which may inevitably entangle future generations.

This month’s ultimate submission to the Paris agreement will one again reiterate that solidarity is paramount. Surely this will push our officials to choose sustainable options throughout each of our societies, and get our governments working for the common good. What is already a great matter of concern for surrounding nations must now become that of Britain, too. A vote to remain in the European Union ensures that our foreign partners can check upon our sometimes slacking government. Total membership within our vibrant global society and with its collective organisations enables reinforcement of our joint missions.

Brexit will damage our environmental focus. Britain will simply become too relaxed with a vote to leave on 23 June. Perhaps with next week’s full endorsement of the Paris agreement will shed a stronger light on the growing challenges facing our planet. The UK too easily surrenders in the fight to keep our societies safe from the inevitable perils of nature. It’s time that we passionately stood side-by-side with our international companions. Only then can we truly minimise the very real threat which could make our days increasingly gloomy in years to come.

Standard