China's Social Credit System

Imagine, dear reader, that you live in a world where everyone of your actions (or inactions) is recorded and judged by your peers. From bad driving, smoking in a non-smoking area, and a failure to visit your parents/grandparents on a regular basis, all can have an effect on your ‘social rating’ and thus ‘social credit’. You may be thinking that these can be harmful to other members of society, but easily rectifiable. However, should one of these infractions prevent and individual from acquiring social services, transport (train and plane), prevent you from getting a job, access to the internet, and many more sanctions that will isolate an individual within modern society[1]. This reality is now being rolled out throughout China (for a more comprehensive list look at image 1). This step for China has implications for the world and the Global Economy.

Why does the CCP want a Social Credit System?

According to the CCP the Social Credit System will be implemented by 2020 with a focus of keeping trust which is ‘glorious’ and breaking trust in society as ‘disgraceful’.

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) biggest fear is not being able to control it’s population, 1.4 billion at the time of writing, and thus lose control of the governance of the country. This eventuality has caused the CPC lead government to take drastic steps towards minorities within China[2]. Censorship and economic growth, has been the centrepiece of controlling the Chinese population, with a decline in economic growth (from as high a 10% almost a decade ago, to now 6.5%[3]) and censorship only being able to go so far (it cannot cover the entire population). ‘Self’ and ‘Social’ censorship has now become the order of the day and the future within Chinese Society.

To clarify this point, an example of this would be Uber. If you use Uber taxies to travel to a destination, the five star rating for both the customer and the driver can have an impact on whether 1) you as the customer gets picked up by the driver and 2) customers can scrutinise drivers rating and thus deprive them of work or on a more extreme not the driver could lose his job with Uber.

any rating system has its pros and cons but to have such a system throughout society severely limits what individual will do, thus restricting freedom. However, the CCP has taken this to the next level by placing the rating system, not in their own hands, but that of Chinese citizens therefore creating an level of control that will be unprecedented in human history. We as people judge others, its human nature, we cannot help but say ‘I don’t like what he/she is wearing or saying’ but with the ability to rate another individual can now have serious consequences for the lives of Chinese citizens (e.g. depriving an individual from social services). To take human nature and ‘weaponizes it’ in the way the CCP government is planning to do in China, not only extends the CCP’s control of Chinese Society but will ultimately have implications for those outside China.

How does the Social Credit System in China have implications for the rest of the world?

The first thing the pops into my mind is corporations (most notably Western corporations) would have to 1) adopt the practices of the social credit system in China and 2) prevent any western corporation from entering China (or seize the assets of those who are currently in China) if they do not comply with the Social Credit System. We have already seen this with the tech-giant Google, who recently announced they will be taking on the role of censor when operating in China[4] (in order for the search engine to have access to Chinese customers).

The second implication for the world could be a ‘trickle down’ affect that influences Western Corporations. Corporations could adopt similar methods in their home countries. For instance, Elon Musk plans to create a website that will ‘rate’ journalists[5], thus giving corporation and their owners greater influence in what we consume, read, and watch. This in my opinion is already the case and thus limits the individual to make rational choices in regards to there own utility and thus reducing the freedom of individual to have access to a plethora of consumer goods or media content (if the good or media content is classed as ‘untrustworthy’ it could be in danger of being taken out of circulation or removed from media sites). We should ask ourselves do we really need corporations to tell us what we want or what is best for us?

China’s Social Credit System has an Orwellian overtones to it, which has already started to become the norm for Western Corporations[6]

---

[1] The Independent, China ranks citizens with a social credit system - here's what you can do wrong and how you can be punished: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/china-social-credit-system-punishments-rewards-explained-a8297486.html

[2] The Geopolitics, Vatican and China Deal: Microcosm of Control: https://thegeopolitics.com/vatican-and-china-deal-a-microcosm-of-control/

[3] The World Bank, The World Bank in China: Overview: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#1

[4] Foreign Policy, Google is Handing the Future of the Internet to China: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/10/google-is-handing-the-future-of-the-internet-to-china/

Silicon, Apple Removes Thousands of Apps from China App Store: https://www.silicon.co.uk/mobility/mobile-apps/apple-removes-apps-china-store-236141

[5] CNBC, Elon Musk may actually be making a website to rate journalists for credibility and ‘core trust’, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/25/elon-musk-may-actually-be-making-a-website-to-rate-journalists-for-credibility-and-core-truth.html

[6]  Verdict, Facebook rating score has echoes of China Social Credit System: https://www.verdict.co.uk/facebook-rating-score-china-social-credit/

Contributions for The Geopolitics

You can also find our contributions at The Geopolitics; https://thegeopolitics.com/

Implications for the US Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal -

https://thegeopolitics.com/implications-for-the-us-withdrawal-from-iran-nuclear-deal/

Vatican and China Deal: A Microcosm of Control -

https://thegeopolitics.com/vatican-and-china-deal-a-microcosm-of-control/

Ireland’s Abortion Referendum: So what happens now?

The victory for the ‘Yes’ campaign in the Republic of Ireland’s Referendum on Abortion, does not necessarily mean that the campaign for (and against) abortion is finished. Rather the Referendum is just the start of the process to introduce abortion on the island of Ireland. Legislation, legal challenges, and the possibility of the debate extending to the Republic of Ireland northern neighbour, the debate over whether abortion should be legalised or not has only just begun.

Prior to the referendum I wrote a piece on the arguments for and against repeal of the Eighth Amendment ('Repeal' or 'Keep' the Eighth? Ireland's Referendum Debate), similarly to the last article I will endeavour to be neutral as possible and present the facts as I currently see them.

The ‘Yes’ vote won the referendum by 66.4% too the no campaigns 33.6%. Although the vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution has come to an end, what will happen now to Ireland’s laws regarding abortion? Currently a Bill, Thirty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitutional Bill 2018, has been presented to the Oireachtas (Parliament of Ireland) for consultation, and if the bill is passed (yes, the TDs and Senator’s will get a vote on the issue before it is ratified by the Parliament and sent to the President) this will open the way for an abortion law to be presented to the Irish Parliament. During the referendum campaign the Irish government published a policy proposal, entitled Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy, which will be the bedrock of any abortion law presented to the Irish Parliament.

Although this process is common within a Western styled Democracy, challenges and implication have emerged to the subsequent ‘yes’ vote on the 25^th May referendum result. Three separate challenges, or applications, have been brought to the Irish High Court arguing that the referendum campaign had several illegalities resulting in an unfair advantage give to the ‘yes’/Pro-Choice campaign. The applicants have brought allegation “that student voters were not properly registered, concerns about tallies, balance in RTE’s coverage, the Referendum Commission’s information campaign and booklet and statements by the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) and the Minister for Health during the campaign”. This raises the question of whether the new law regarding abortion will be held up until the cases are heard in the Irish High Court. Furthermore, it may also suggest that irregularities in the conduct of referenda (I have the UK EU Referendum in mind here, as many accusations of irregularity have been brought to light) on such important questions. But such an eventuality will not be discussed in this article, rather it’s just a thought to consider.

The main implications from the result of the referendum result may also affect the Republic of Irelands neighbours, Northern Ireland. Like the Republic, Northern Ireland has restrictive laws in regard to abortion (only allowing abortions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger). However, unlike the rest of the UK that allows abortion under the Abortion Act 1967, Northern Ireland is exempt from such an act.

But a question remains, does the UK government and Parliament have the right to change Northern Irelands abortion laws? The issue of abortion, as in the Republic is an emotive one. However, the UK Parliament, after the passing of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 2010, the right to determine abortion policy was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the UK Parliament remains the central authority, capable of overturning decisions made by dissolved Parliament/Assemblies, it is unlikely Westminster will intervene on such a matter. As the

It is also an established convention that the UK government will not overturn the decisions of a devolved Assembly if that area of legislation which the Assembly has voted on falls into the category of ‘devolved powers’ or none ‘reserved powers’.

According to the UK Supreme Court, the current legislation in Northern Ireland “is incompatible with the human rights law”, However the judges rejected the appeal that had been filled in 2013 stating that “if it was an individual who had brought this case who had been a victim of this law they would have been likely to side with them”. But this raises another question, if a personal case is brought before the Supreme Court with the judges siding with those who brought the case, would that make the clauses in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 2010 redundant? As both Human Rights and the Northern Ireland Act are both enshrined in UK law?

While pressure for the 1967 Act to be applied in Northern Ireland has been put on Westminster many obstacles still stand in its way. One notable one would be that the UK government currently needs the support of the DUP (who are against extending the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland) in the Commons. What is also notable about Northern Ireland is that there are both Catholics and Protestants (mainly Presbyterians) that are strongly affiliated to their respective faiths, which both reject abortion. Therefore, it is unclear whether a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly would be in favour of extending the 1967 Act. One final obstacle would be the legality or willingness of the UK Parliament to interfere in, what essentially is a devolved matter, this could create a precedent upon which the UK Parliament could also interfere in other devolved matters (not only in Northern Ireland but also Wales and Scotland). 

I therefore conclude that the debate surrounding abortion has many obstacles upon which the UK government would seek to avoid confronting. With Brexit negotiations and a small majority within the Commons, May’s government would avoid this subject as much as possible if only to preserve her government by not risking the support of the DUP.

Notes;

Balanced Opinion, (2018), ‘’Repeal’ or ‘Keep’ the Eighth?: Ireland’s Referendum Debate’ - http://balanceopinion.blogspot.com/2018/05/repeal-or-keep-eighth-irelands.html  

The Guardian, (2018), ‘Irish abortion referendum: yes wins with 66.4% - as it happened’ - https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/may/26/irish-abortion-referendum-result-count-begins-live

Irish Government, (2018), ‘Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy’ - https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

RTE, (2018), ‘ Applications sought to challenge referendum result’, - https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0611/969737-high-court-referendum-challenge/

HM Government, (2013), ‘Devolution Settlement: Northern Ireland’, - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-northern-ireland

Euronews, (2018), ‘UK Supreme Court rules Northern Ireland abortion reformers must bring personal case’, - http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/07/uk-supreme-court-rules-northern-ireland-abortion-reformers-must-bring-personal-cases

http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/07/uk-supreme-court-rules-northern-ireland-abortion-reformers-must-bring-personal-cases

'Repeal' or 'Keep' the Eighth? Ireland's Referendum Debate

This is not your run of the mill story for us here at Balanced Opinion, nevertheless it’s an important topic to discuss. In this article I will present both sides of the debate in Ireland’s Referendum, which is due to be held on the 25^th May. However, unlike previous articles I will not be sharing my own opinion on this topic, rather I will just present both sides of the debate and pose a few questions at the end that you should consider.

Ireland’s abortion law has been defined by the Article 40.3.3 of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Article 40.3.3 states;

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”

The Eighth Amendment will be put to a vote on the 25^th May, if a ‘yes’ vote emerges Ireland could see a change in its abortion laws, which some have described as the ‘one of the most restrictive in Europe’. The current law prohibiting abortion in the Republic of Ireland, Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, stipulates that a women seeking a legal abortion must first be examined by a number of specialists (this can be between 2-5, with cases of the mother feeling suicidal, threatening to commit suicide, or experiencing severe mental health problems, a review by a minimum of 3 specialists is required). But can a law that holds the question of ‘life’ be too restrictive? I will now present both cases in this debate

Pro-choice

The pro-choice argument for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment focuses on the issue of women rights, more importantly that women rights (humans rights) are being denied to the women of Ireland due to this Constitutional provision and 2013 Act. This, together with the experiences of women who have left the country to obtain abortions (of which there are 3,500 a year that do so) and obtained illegal abortions/abortion pills within Ireland, make up the crux of the pro-choice argument.

Many of the pro-choice groups argue, as put forward by Aljazeera’s Ozlem Hangul, “Ireland's current abortion law is a long-standing human rights violation that has been depriving women of their right to life, health, privacy, information, equality and non-discrimination, as well as their right to be free from torture and ill-treatment”. The inability of women to choose what to do with there own bodies and decide what is good for them, is one of the most important factors in the pro-choice case. This further extends to the fact that women, who want an abortion, have to obtain one outside of Island of Ireland (abortion is also illegal in Northern Ireland), placing added pressure on the women and causing more distress.

It is also held that the pregnant women should also have the choice of whether the quality of the child’s life would be of a high standard. This implies that if the financial situation of the parents cannot support a child then abortion is, sometimes the only option available, this ultimately supports the overall argument that it’s the women’s right to choose.

The most important point raised by pro-choice groups, for me this point cannot be brushed aside, is whether a woman could seek an abortion if she is the victim of rape/incest. I don’t know how to put this but here I go, a victim of rape/incest would be unmanageable at best but to then fall pregnant after this attack causes further distress. Thus pro-choice groups argue that the women has already has had one choice taken away from her (meaning giving consent to a sexual encounter) and now she must experience a lack of choice in whether to terminate the pregnancy, due to the 2013 Act and Irish Constitution.

Pro-life

In contrast to the pro-choice argument, the pro-life side of the debate, argues that the unborn child has the same rights as the mother (as described in the current 2013 Act and Constitution) and thus the status quo should remain. They cite that the realities of abortion are not fully explained to the mother who want an abortion (this being that life starts at the moment of conception), with the more extreme opponents arguing that abortion is comparable to genocide or murder. Organizations such as the Young Defence, one of the largest pro-life groups in Ireland, supports this line of argument. According to pro-life groups, which don’t have to be religious in nature, if you accept the fact that life begins at conception then it is surly true that if a pregnancy is terminated then a life has ended?

It is furthermore important to highlight the role of contraception’s such as ‘the Pill’ which, according to pro-life groups, acts as an abortive if the egg has been fertilized, the Pill will thus prevent a pregnancy from occurring and thus prevent a life from beginning (at conception). It is further argued that mothers before going to an abortion clinic, if they elect to do so, don’t realise that there are two types of abortion, one medical (medication will terminated the pregnancy) the other surgical (where the doctor will physically remove the foetus from the womb – I have looked into this myself and I do encourage all to look at this to get the full picture of abortions – please not that some images or descriptions are not pleasant to view).

There is also another dimension to the pro-life argument, one of morality and the belief in the social teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Churches position, with 78% of the population of the Republic of Ireland identifying as Catholic (2016 census), is based on the Sixth Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). The Catechism of the Catholic Church further supports this argument by stating:

“From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice (GS, no. 27, 3), gravely contrary to moral law” (CCC, no. 2322)

This argument, although dismissed by the pro-choice groups holds support amongst many in Ireland. This is not to confuse the pro-life as solely being a religious position,

They also cite the statistics of abortions in England and Wales (where abortion is legal). In 2015 191,014 were carried out, this being 21% of all pregnancies in England and Wales ending in abortions. This amounts to a total increase of 111% since 1969, “and by 2015 98% of abortions were for statutory reasons, rather than to save the life of the mother, for the benefit of already-born children, and fetal anomaly” (cited, abort73), these combined make up 2% of all abortions in England and Wales. The very fact that many abortions occur, not because of a threat to the mother life or fetal anomaly, but to social reasons instead. Pro-life groups see abortions as a form of contraception, a way for individuals to remove themselves from responsibility (you were aware of the consequences of having sex, pregnancy, so you should take responsibility for your actions), and the view that those in financial difficulties see abortion as ‘their only option’.

 Conclusion

With the clear difference between the pro-choice arguments and pro-life arguments being, is the taking of a life (abortion) morally justifiable? This is where the debate, and the groups within the debate, don’t understand this simple question. Although pro-life groups do argue this, they neglect the rights of women to choose, similarly the pro-choice groups do not tackle this question of whether abortion is morally justifiable, as a life is ultimately lost.

I will end on a few questions that you, the reader should or may consider, in this debate. Can a middle ground be reached in this debate that is satisfactory to both sides, without repealing the Eighth Amendment? Perhaps we should not be focusing so much on whether it is morally right or that women’s rights are more important than a life inside the womb? Maybe we should look more at the causes of abortion and society as a whole, we could eliminate economic factors in the decision-making process of abortions (I recognise that this is but one consideration, but a consideration nonetheless), by providing more support for women during and after pregnancy? Or more alternatives to abortions should be presented to women before an abortion is allowed? Does this not help to preserve life and gives women more choice? I hope, dear reader, you will consider some of these questions.

Notes;

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Legislation

The Guardian – ‘Ireland’s abortion referendum: It’s painful and it’s personal’ - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/13/ireland-abortion-referendum-25-may-repeal-campaign-women

Irish Government, Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy - https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf

Young Defence - http://www.youthdefence.ie/

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, (2004), Oxford: Oxford University Press

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (2012), United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, Washington D.C

The Irish Catholic Bishops Conference - https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2001/12/12/81-2001/

Aljazeera, ‘Ireland’s abortion referendum: It’s time to say ‘yes’ -  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/ireland-abortion-referendum-time-180510110138119.html

BBC, ‘Abortion in Ireland: The fight for choice’ - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39183423

Abort73 - http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/uk_abortion_statistics/

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children - https://www.spuc.org.uk/

The Juncker Plan: What does this mean for Europe?

Last Wednesday Jean Claude Juncker  announced to Europe, and the world, his future plans for the EU. What does this mean for Europe and for Brexit? To get a rounded view of Juncker’s plan and the ramifications this may have on Europe, I have looked at several source. However I must confess I am no closer to finding the answers to this questions.

For anything on the EU Nigel Farage is the first port of call. Although a decisive character, Farage has a vast knowledge of the EU and presents many questions and arguments that need to be answered. Farage has present the Juncker Plan as an undemocratic attempt to expand the powers of the EU, and more important for Farage, the EU Commission and the person at its helm. 

Farage’s response to the Juncker’s Plan are expected, as the most well known euroskeptic in the country. Farage has presented the EU as a great monolith similar to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 

But what is the Juncker’s Plan? 

The European Fund for Strategic Investment or the Juncker Plan proposes to join the European Investment Bank and the European Commission with the aim of mobilising €315 billion (increased to €500 billion by 2020) of private investment over the next three years. In his state of the union address Juncker further outlined the future of the EU with further reforms. These reforms include  joining the two presidencies of the Commission and the Council into one. Further reforms such as the European Citizens Initiative, European political party reform,  creation of a European Finance Minister (with various powers over the Eurozone), and the creation of a European Army.

What does this mean for Europe and the Brexit Negotiations? 

The Juncker Plan appears to be a step closer in creating a United States of Europe. With plans to create a single president that will “steer the ship in the right direction”, the visible recognition of domestic political parties European affiliations, and the creation of a European Army. Juncker has taken steps to create a Federalised Europe. 

In relation to Brexit Juncker has made it clear that Brexit will not be an easy ride for all concerned. To this effect The Guardian has stated that the Plan “was an ambitious bid for deeper integration. No more Europe à la carte, special deals and opt-outs. Under Juncker’s vision, joining the Euro currency and passport-free Schengen Zone would be the norm”. Thus making many of the leave campaign arguments (in the referendum) difficult to furfil and the difference between soft and hard Brexit.

The plans set forth by Juncker are of no surprise to many due to the sluggish growth within the the Eurozone. In fact according to the German Finance Minister Schaeuble, the plans are in line with current German policy toward the EU and the Eurozone. The need for a single president, a Eurozone wide finance minister, and a single budge are, in my in my mind, a plan to save the Eurozone and reverse the effects of slow growth and huge debts throughout the Eurozone and the periphery. 

By further integrating Europe into a full fledged political and economic union, Juncker’s Plan gives Europe an opportunity to reinvigorate European economies. However it is still clear that Southern Europe still has massive debts (especially Italy and Greece), the unification of the Eurozone budget gives the ECB breathing space and presents the EU with new ways of combating the duel problems of growth and debt (not to mention the equally important problems of unemployment and decline in real wages especially in Southern Europe). 

The bold plans sent out by Juncker, in my opinion, will not solve Europe’s economic problems or prevent the collapse of the Euro. Rather it will just prolong its demise and the eventual collapse of the EU as a political and economic project. Whatever you political persuasion recognition of the continual economic challenges facing Europe are too big to overcome within the current frame work and with the plans set forth by Juncker. With the continued rise of euroskeptism within Europe, there may not be the political will of the member states to follow this plan and thus save the Eurozone. For a pessimist I’m quite optimistic about Europe solving its economic problems. However I question whether such solutions will arise from an ever deepening of the political and economic union that is the EU. 

Exporting Democracy: Britain and Saudi Arabia

The key to the United Kingdom’s economy (like the rest of the world) is energy, and in particular oil or as it has been termed ‘Black Gold’. Oil is the most prominent natural resource used in modern society from energy generation, to vehicles, and tooth paste - oil rules. If this is true then those producing ‘Black Gold’ have a unique position within the global community, with Saudi Arabia one of these unique countries. We all know this but yet we are reluctant to confront the reality of using oil and its implications in the countries where it is produced. Just like the raw materials, gold, diamonds, private and public capital, within apartheid South Africa in the 1960s, the British government knowingly and willingly supports an authoritarian regime (Saudi Arabia) for the procurement of oil and the profits generated from this.     

When we consider Britain’s relationship with the Middle East we assume that it is one of spreading democracy or combating radicalization and terrorism. However this may not be the entire case. Consider the vast amount of oil purchased from Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States) in exchange for lucrative arms deals for the Wests military-industrial complex? With Saudi Arabia supporting Wahhabism (also known as Salafi Islam) and with many of these terrorist groups either fully endorsing this ideology or affiliating with a similar conservative strain of Islam, would it not be appropriate for the British government to take a step back and stop supporting Saudi Arabia? The possible connections of the Saudi Kingdom to terrorist or affiliated groups, makes one think whether the British government is supporting democracy and combating the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East.
   

The Telegraph stated in an article in May 2017 that “the US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more the $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimated that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists”. Thus Saudi Arabia is at least suspect when supporting radical Islam. Therefore, how can the British government be sure that the Saudis are not supporting terrorism (given the fact that they both follow strict forms or interpretations of Islam) or as The Telegraph article state “members of the Saudi ruling class have applauses Wahhabism for its Salafi piety and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam”.

Britain supports Saudi Arabia to the tune of £3.3billion since 2015. At the same time the Saudi lead coalition has been engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen. With one of the worst preventable humanitarian disasters on the rise in Yemen, is it morally right that a democracy should be supporting both a suspect supporter of terrorism and a country engaged in conflict? For clearance on this question I believe it is not acceptable that the UK government should be actively seeking financial gain (or financial gain for those in the arms industry) at the expense of democracy and human lives. For example BAE Systems website states that they work “in partnership with its customers and Saudi industry, it delivers cost-effective solutions supported by in-country management and technical capabilities”, with no mention or reference as to how these weapons are being used. This is simply a diversion from the truth that BAE Systems, through the sale of arms is directly helping Saudi Arabia persecute a war in Yemen for financial gain. With the latest batch of Typhoon Jets being delivered, to Saudi Arabia, on the 6^th June 2017 after one of the largest arms deal worth £20 billion.  

Is the British government and the politicians in Westminster aware of their actions and the implications this has for innocent people in the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East? Of course this question is rhetorical, it is clear that they are fully aware of the implications but choice to look the other way. Is the British government thus supporting democracy in the Middle East or continuing to contribute to conflict in the region that appears to have no end in sight, unfortunately it appears to be the latter.

Notes;

The British government supported the apartheid regime in South Africa throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and to a lesser extend the 1980s. Although vocal in their criticism of human rights abuses, the British government was reluctant to interfere in the trade and investment flowing into South Africa in this period, and thus preventing the profits generated from this trade flowing to the shareholders and board members facilitating this trade. This policy of British ‘non-intervention’ contributed to the continuation of apartheid. For more information on Britain’s relationship with South Africa (during the apartheid regime) contact the author of this post.

Recommended reading;

Read Parliament Ltd by Martin Williams for a more in-depth study of politicians’ financial dealings especially, but not exclusively, with the arms trade. 

For a discussion of South Africa’s relationship with Britain during the apartheid era, I recommend Uneasy Relationship: Britain and South Africa by James Barber.

A Green New Deal?

Am I causing climate change? If I’m honest I don’t know the answer to this but the likelihood is I am. It sounds like I am denying the existence of climate change, but the truth of the matter is it’s hard to comprehend such a change due to my own actions.  If we agree that climate is changing what can we, and more importantly government, do about it? I propose that we and the government can do a lot to mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change.

We are told consistently by politician, scientists, and the media that to prevent climate change we need to radically alter and change our way of life now! However, despite these warnings, little changes that will be radical enough to reverse the effects of climate change that have already taken place. To me all this sounds like a big undertaking and a direct challenge to our current consumer society. However, can this radical change be beneficial not just to the planet but to our economy and indeed our lives? I believe that this can be the case.

I came across a book Environmental Debt by Amy Larkin. This book (although written in 2013) has, in my opinion, presented a clear and consistent argument of how we as citizens and the business community can change the way we consume and in effect create an economic system that will create sustainability. As Larkin illustrates, the business community can be a force for good and bad change in the economy. Larkin sights the CEO Paul Polman stating “we cannot choose between economic growth and sustainability – we must have both”. Although this book may seem out of date, it highlights the fact that business have been aware of the damage of climate change but as a whole the world continues to consume and extract natural resources at an alarming rate. Convincing me that economies have to change in order to create sustainability will little impact on the natural world.     

My views on climate change are not from an entirely environmental standpoint but also an economic standpoint. We all know that in the near future natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, metallic ores, and water) will become scarce, so it is my opinion that we should make changes now so that we can live for tomorrow and still enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. We as individuals can change and reduce our carbon footprint. But to make effective and long lasting change, across society, government needs to step in and support and implement policies that can see these changes happen.

It is discouraging to hear that solar panels could face an 800% tax increase and that the good work of the UK Green Investment Bank could be sold to a private corporation; meaning the UK government has passed the responsibility onto someone else. Government should take a leadership in this fight against climate change by creating a Green New Deal. This New Deal in renewable energy transformation has the potential to rejuvenate the economy and propel Britain into creating sustainable economic growth.

Over the past decade renewable energy has become the cheapest form of energy. For instance, over ten years ago, solar energy cost $600 per MWh now it only costs $100 for solar and $50 for wind power. This reduction in the cost of producing green energy has advantages in reducing energy cost for both ordinary consumers and businesses across Britain. Although this may seem like a logical way for the UK to satisfy its energy requirements, the UK government has followed a policy of trying to ‘Kill off the UK solar industry before it becomes the cheapest form of electricity’.

This has been demonstrated in Germany where the policy of Energiewende has produced remarkable results in the production of renewable energy. Other countries such as the United States and China have also followed a policy of producing cost-effective renewable energy. It is my belief that the UK government, when confronted with this logical solution to energy, will not challenge the Big Six monopoly on energy. Energy has become an integrated part of our lives and to separate the two, in the modern world, will be catastrophic. Thus the UK government should confront the Big Six, invest heavily in renewables, and in return should take a share of the profit (which can then be reinvested in producing new renewable power sources). This can produce sustainable energy at a lower cost to all that use it in the UK.

Moving away from fossil fuels as a way of producing our energy can, in the long term, make us less reliant on oil, natural gas, uranium and from repressive and authoritarian regimes from across the world. Although I recognise the importance of these resources it is increasingly clear that in the future these resources are becoming more scare.  

Larkin effectively sums up my argument: “today, it seems, there finally may be enough financial self-interest and environmental awareness that traditionally antagonistic groups are motivated to work in tandem to solve entrenched problems”.

I recommend you read this book for more information of how business and financial self-interest can still function and make money, but in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way - A. Larkin, (2013), Environmental Debt: The Hidden Cost of a Changing Global Economy, New York, Palgrave MacMillan.