That made you click didn't it? Sorry to disappoint (another bedroom reference there for your delectation), but this is a brief (there I go again) piece (ahem) about the so-called Bedroom tax or 'spare room supplement' being proposed by our great leaders and masters at this time.
Now by instinct I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, but I have some serious misgivings about this policy.
Firstly let's just clear up the fact that this was a policy mooted by Labour and they would have brought forward legislation on exactly this issue had the electorate been stupid enough to vote them in again last time, instead of just almost doing so. (Go figure).
Because, you may not have noticed yet, but the politicians we vote for and elect, are allowed to put forward some suggestions and shout loudly from time to time, but it's Whitehall, and unelected Civil Servants who actually decide on policy and keep the whole machinery of Government rumbling on.
So Labour, like the Coalition, understood the principle that houses with more bedrooms cost more money and that, therefore, people who live in social rented accommodation (council houses to you and me) should have a clear need for the number of bedrooms in the house in order to qualify for that size of property. And single people living in three bedroomed homes while families with children live in one-bedroom homes, particularly when all of it is paid for by the state (for 'state' read 'taxpayer') is just plain wrong.
And that's fine, it makes sense and in a world where, for the past 50 years we'd been building anything like the number of new homes (including social rented or 'affordable' as they're sometimes, misleadingly described) needed to meet demand (with more people living alone, people living independently into older age, family breakdown, growing population etc), this would be workable.
But we haven't. The Labour caveat to the (let's call it, for simplicity) bedroom tax, was that it would only be levied if tenants had been offered and refused a suitable alternative. Now we can argue about what 'suitable' means til the cows come home, but let's just say somewhere with more or fewer bedrooms depending upon the size of their family, taking account of any disabilities etc, within the same post-code, for the sake of argument.
And I agree with that. If said alternative is available, has been offered and declined, then the charge (and by 'charge' I mean whatever 'penalty' is being put forward) should be made.
But just charging people for where they've ended up (kids left home etc) without them knowing it was going to happen so they could downsize (just as one could or would in the private housing sector) and if alternative provision were available, is draconian in my opinion. I understand about comparisons between public and private sector provision and this system should be imposed for all new tenants, but the problem of lack of provision, as previously described, means that there is very rarely a suitable alternative open to the tenants concerned. Which means that many of them have no choice but to accept this penalty. Which, to my mind, is akin to charging people for the air that they breathe. If they have no choice about it, it is a backwards, draconian and completely unfair step in my opinion and what's more it is an unworkable game of musical chairs which will inevitably hit the worst off in society the most.
I'm all for breaking the welfare trap that has people almost stuck in a life on benefits: I see strong evidence of this close to where I live where, for many 14 and 15 year old girls, 'starting a family' is seen (and I'm deadly serious about this) as a career option, in that it comes with housing, child benefit etc and is 'liveable'. So I do believe the balance has to be changed as IDS is trying to do, to encourage people to work and to get on. But this particular measure is badly drafted, badly thought-through, unworkable and unfair.
Anyway, following the start of this blog, it seems I'm in the spare room anyway for the foreseeable future. ;) Thanks for reading.
Wednesday 27 March 2013
Aspiration Nation
What does 'Aspiration Nation' really add up to?
It has clearly been seen before during 2012; was used again by Call-Me-Dave during PMQs immediately before the Chancellor's budget speech and repeated therein several times, and subsequently. So is it a new dawn for the coalition or another gimmick like 'in it together' or 'localism' both of which seem to have died a slow quiet death in recent times?
So, 'Aspiration Nation' then? Is it a new vision, a strong, well defined and clear signpost to the future or another half-baked, half-hearted message that its creators hope might just fly?
The thing about slogans, strap-lines or 'mission statements' is that they can do great things for, or great damage to, reputations and outcomes. Ideally they should be relatively simple so that everyone can understand what is being communicated, strong and clear in a way which captures the imagination and, crucially, they must be committed to on the part of the proposer and supported by actions, in reality, on the ground. There are, I would suggest, four levels of quality when looking at slogans; 1 being the ideal, 2 being good (and arguably better than 1 - bear with me on this), 3 being a bit of a waste of time and 4 being damaging.
1. Strong, clear message backed by real, coherent activity on the ground.
2. Slightly more muddled, inaccessible message but with a clear connected vision being delivered.
3. Strong message but not supported in reality.
4. Half-baked unclear message with no resonance in reality.
Not being (particularly) party political here, but the example of 'New Labour' would seem to be an appropriate one to use. Following on from 18 years' of Tory Government, when the incumbents had run out of steam (as do all Governments after 2.5 terms or so) the New Labour thing was a breath of fresh air to many voters, signalling as it did; change, something new, a new dawn, a fresh start blah blah. (The word 'New', like the word 'sex' sells in advertising terms). So it was a strong vision which was, initially, backed by programmes and policies being delivered on the ground. Everything Labour then tried to do was set against the background of this vision: Education, health, the economy, defense etc, was all about delivering the New Labour vision.
And it worked, to the extent that it won Mr Blair three elections. It was a strong, clear vision that was (to an extent) supported in reality on the ground - or at least was repeated often enough and very effectively 'spun' often using stats rather than actual outcomes (see the stats-led disasters that are now coming to light in education and the NHS for proof of this), to convince many people that it was working. Critics would (and do) say that actually the whole thing was a slogan-led programme which was not properly reflected by achievements on the ground, which is where it descended from number 1 on the above list, towards number 3. It got lost along the way, but not for a considerable amount of time, and then Mr Brown came in without much of a clue about vision, communications, engaging with other human beings, finance, figures..etc you know the rest of course, and the whole thing fell into disrepute.
But having this strong, clear vision worked wonders for Labour for a number of years. And whilst I am instinctively not a Labour supporter, I can respect the clarity of vision that New Labour represented even if, ultimately, it failed and was not, after all, all that strongly represented in real progress.
So, just when we needed real leadership to get us out of the mess that engulfed the UK on the back of failed Labour policy and world economic activity (disasters which, by the way were not spotted by the same 'leading economists' who are now telling us where we went wrong and what we should now be doing. Bah), what have we got?
We had 'in it together' which was a laudable sentiment but one which was very open to miss-interpretation and (pardon the term) piss-taking in relation to the have-nots using it to kick the 'haves, particularly in Government. We had 'Localism' which was, I think, about 'power to the people' (irony claxon), but which simply didn't resonate because it wasn't clear what it meant and wasn't backed up, having been introduced, by any kind of commitment from the Tory party.
And now we have 'Aspiration Nation'. On the face of it it's quite strong if a little 'gimmicky' and not easy to define what it is. 'Aspiration' is quite a good sentiment to use - everyone aspires to bettering themselves, their family's prospects, their country etc. It also suggests improvement and ambition. 'Nation' supports the vision by suggesting inclusiveness, that it applies to everyone and also has some nationalistic overtones which, despite our now almost dominant PC culture, can still be a positive thing to communicate, especially in the current European political climate. So not brilliant in the way that 'New Labour' was, but I would say adequate, number 2 on the list, rather than number 1, 3 or 4. Yet.
And the thing about number 2, is that it is probably the best one in practical terms to be adopted, because it relies much more upon what is being done on the ground for its credibility and power, than does the brilliant number 1 slogan which can mask failings and be used to dupe people into thinking everything is fine, when it isn't. Aspiration Nation cannot carry people with it on its own (it's not strong enough), but it can, if matched by real, measurable progress, become a strong message to define positive improvements. And, the reason why I say it can be better than my defined number 1, is that it relies on real progress to be made rather than spin which will only ever get you so far. Mr Blair, Mandelson, Campbell ;).
But in order to work effectively it must be committed to by everyone in the coalition (that'll be a first then), must be repeated ad nauseam and must be related to positive achievements and changes to policy. It must be explained repeatedly and often by everyone involved in its delivery and every new initiative must be able to be measured and compared against the Aspiration Nation vision. In that way the credibility of the vision can be communicated, underlined and built upon so that it becomes stronger than the sum of its parts. And it can also provide direction and leadership in the formation of new policies: 'How does this Health initiative (for example) fit into our Aspiration Nation vision?'
My hope is that this will be the case: that reality - putting things right, solving the massive problems we face as a nation, delivering leadership on the big issues including Immigration, Defence, Europe, Health and Education (as opposed to gay marriage and a ban on hunting say [just to be even handed]) - will happen and then be credited as being part of the Aspiration Nation vision. It will then come to define what this Government is all about and might even allow it to take some credit for having a coherent, joined-up approach to its work that might just deliver electoral success, particularly when compared to a current opposition that is offering no ideas or coherent policy suggestions, but, despite that is well ahead in the polls.
It seems to me that it has taken a gargantuan effort for Call-Me-Dave to be trailing so disastrously in the polls following his replacement of one of the most morally and financially bankrupt administrations in history, and that, just maybe, a coherent communications strategy, including a strong vision, well delivered, might just have been of some use to him. Sigh.
Anyway, things seem to have gone quiet on the Aspiration Nation front since the budget and the danger must be, therefore, that it will, like its predecessors, be relegated to another gimmick that didn't quite work, didn't really communicate what the coalition stands for and what the country needs. If that is the case then 'Aspiration Nation' moves down my status list to number 4 - which means that it becomes damaging because it is seen as another half-hearted, un-thought-through piece of crap with which the spin doctors were trying to dupe us all and which just provides more evidence of the shallow, un-prepared and uncommitted nature of the current administration. It also makes any future slogans or promises less likely to be taken seriously in a way which can be truly damaging to their reputation.
Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful that the coalition really understands the value of a strong, clear and effective vision for the country, or that it could bring massive benefits to them amongst the electorate. Maybe they shouldn't have left it to the night before the pitch to come up with something?
Thanks for reading. I wrote a much more technical - and sweary, sorry - piece on the subject of vision last year. Just if, after the above, you're still not quite able to get off to sleep, you can read it here.
It has clearly been seen before during 2012; was used again by Call-Me-Dave during PMQs immediately before the Chancellor's budget speech and repeated therein several times, and subsequently. So is it a new dawn for the coalition or another gimmick like 'in it together' or 'localism' both of which seem to have died a slow quiet death in recent times?
So, 'Aspiration Nation' then? Is it a new vision, a strong, well defined and clear signpost to the future or another half-baked, half-hearted message that its creators hope might just fly?
The thing about slogans, strap-lines or 'mission statements' is that they can do great things for, or great damage to, reputations and outcomes. Ideally they should be relatively simple so that everyone can understand what is being communicated, strong and clear in a way which captures the imagination and, crucially, they must be committed to on the part of the proposer and supported by actions, in reality, on the ground. There are, I would suggest, four levels of quality when looking at slogans; 1 being the ideal, 2 being good (and arguably better than 1 - bear with me on this), 3 being a bit of a waste of time and 4 being damaging.
1. Strong, clear message backed by real, coherent activity on the ground.
2. Slightly more muddled, inaccessible message but with a clear connected vision being delivered.
3. Strong message but not supported in reality.
4. Half-baked unclear message with no resonance in reality.
Not being (particularly) party political here, but the example of 'New Labour' would seem to be an appropriate one to use. Following on from 18 years' of Tory Government, when the incumbents had run out of steam (as do all Governments after 2.5 terms or so) the New Labour thing was a breath of fresh air to many voters, signalling as it did; change, something new, a new dawn, a fresh start blah blah. (The word 'New', like the word 'sex' sells in advertising terms). So it was a strong vision which was, initially, backed by programmes and policies being delivered on the ground. Everything Labour then tried to do was set against the background of this vision: Education, health, the economy, defense etc, was all about delivering the New Labour vision.
And it worked, to the extent that it won Mr Blair three elections. It was a strong, clear vision that was (to an extent) supported in reality on the ground - or at least was repeated often enough and very effectively 'spun' often using stats rather than actual outcomes (see the stats-led disasters that are now coming to light in education and the NHS for proof of this), to convince many people that it was working. Critics would (and do) say that actually the whole thing was a slogan-led programme which was not properly reflected by achievements on the ground, which is where it descended from number 1 on the above list, towards number 3. It got lost along the way, but not for a considerable amount of time, and then Mr Brown came in without much of a clue about vision, communications, engaging with other human beings, finance, figures..etc you know the rest of course, and the whole thing fell into disrepute.
But having this strong, clear vision worked wonders for Labour for a number of years. And whilst I am instinctively not a Labour supporter, I can respect the clarity of vision that New Labour represented even if, ultimately, it failed and was not, after all, all that strongly represented in real progress.
So, just when we needed real leadership to get us out of the mess that engulfed the UK on the back of failed Labour policy and world economic activity (disasters which, by the way were not spotted by the same 'leading economists' who are now telling us where we went wrong and what we should now be doing. Bah), what have we got?
We had 'in it together' which was a laudable sentiment but one which was very open to miss-interpretation and (pardon the term) piss-taking in relation to the have-nots using it to kick the 'haves, particularly in Government. We had 'Localism' which was, I think, about 'power to the people' (irony claxon), but which simply didn't resonate because it wasn't clear what it meant and wasn't backed up, having been introduced, by any kind of commitment from the Tory party.
And now we have 'Aspiration Nation'. On the face of it it's quite strong if a little 'gimmicky' and not easy to define what it is. 'Aspiration' is quite a good sentiment to use - everyone aspires to bettering themselves, their family's prospects, their country etc. It also suggests improvement and ambition. 'Nation' supports the vision by suggesting inclusiveness, that it applies to everyone and also has some nationalistic overtones which, despite our now almost dominant PC culture, can still be a positive thing to communicate, especially in the current European political climate. So not brilliant in the way that 'New Labour' was, but I would say adequate, number 2 on the list, rather than number 1, 3 or 4. Yet.
And the thing about number 2, is that it is probably the best one in practical terms to be adopted, because it relies much more upon what is being done on the ground for its credibility and power, than does the brilliant number 1 slogan which can mask failings and be used to dupe people into thinking everything is fine, when it isn't. Aspiration Nation cannot carry people with it on its own (it's not strong enough), but it can, if matched by real, measurable progress, become a strong message to define positive improvements. And, the reason why I say it can be better than my defined number 1, is that it relies on real progress to be made rather than spin which will only ever get you so far. Mr Blair, Mandelson, Campbell ;).
But in order to work effectively it must be committed to by everyone in the coalition (that'll be a first then), must be repeated ad nauseam and must be related to positive achievements and changes to policy. It must be explained repeatedly and often by everyone involved in its delivery and every new initiative must be able to be measured and compared against the Aspiration Nation vision. In that way the credibility of the vision can be communicated, underlined and built upon so that it becomes stronger than the sum of its parts. And it can also provide direction and leadership in the formation of new policies: 'How does this Health initiative (for example) fit into our Aspiration Nation vision?'
My hope is that this will be the case: that reality - putting things right, solving the massive problems we face as a nation, delivering leadership on the big issues including Immigration, Defence, Europe, Health and Education (as opposed to gay marriage and a ban on hunting say [just to be even handed]) - will happen and then be credited as being part of the Aspiration Nation vision. It will then come to define what this Government is all about and might even allow it to take some credit for having a coherent, joined-up approach to its work that might just deliver electoral success, particularly when compared to a current opposition that is offering no ideas or coherent policy suggestions, but, despite that is well ahead in the polls.
It seems to me that it has taken a gargantuan effort for Call-Me-Dave to be trailing so disastrously in the polls following his replacement of one of the most morally and financially bankrupt administrations in history, and that, just maybe, a coherent communications strategy, including a strong vision, well delivered, might just have been of some use to him. Sigh.
Anyway, things seem to have gone quiet on the Aspiration Nation front since the budget and the danger must be, therefore, that it will, like its predecessors, be relegated to another gimmick that didn't quite work, didn't really communicate what the coalition stands for and what the country needs. If that is the case then 'Aspiration Nation' moves down my status list to number 4 - which means that it becomes damaging because it is seen as another half-hearted, un-thought-through piece of crap with which the spin doctors were trying to dupe us all and which just provides more evidence of the shallow, un-prepared and uncommitted nature of the current administration. It also makes any future slogans or promises less likely to be taken seriously in a way which can be truly damaging to their reputation.
Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful that the coalition really understands the value of a strong, clear and effective vision for the country, or that it could bring massive benefits to them amongst the electorate. Maybe they shouldn't have left it to the night before the pitch to come up with something?
Thanks for reading. I wrote a much more technical - and sweary, sorry - piece on the subject of vision last year. Just if, after the above, you're still not quite able to get off to sleep, you can read it here.
Cyprus - a threat to civilised values and peace
Of course I'm not suggesting that Cyprus is a threat to world peace. Heck they'd probably take a couple of weeks to defeat a military minnow like Argentina. And the next village to me, Weston-By-Welland would almost certainly beat Kirchner's mob more quickly. But what is a threat to world peace, to our civilised society, to the values and bedrock upon which we have built our prosperity and with which we have raised our children since the last unpleasantness, is what has been going on on that Mediterranean island.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't we go to war, twice, in the last century to protect ourselves from unelected tyranny, overpowering and self-interested dictatorship from Germany? To secure our freedom to elect our own representatives, to retain our own national identity and the ability to live in peace, work hard, earn money, pay for our material needs, daily comforts and, ideally, a comfortable and secure retirement?
At the heart of that, almost central to it as far as 'ordinary' people are concerned is the assurance that one can rely on one's bank to keep one's money safe. Indeed Governments used to advise people not to keep their cash under the mattress, but instead to put it in the bank 'where it will be safe'. Safe as the bank of England. Or Safe as houses they used to say. That might have a somewhat hollow ring to it if you're in Spain or Ireland or many parts of the US at this moment in time, but you get my drift.
So what we're now seeing in Cyprus where unelected Eurocrats in Brussels have decided simply to take people's money out of their bank accounts is, in my opinion, a grave and serious threat to the stability of the civilised world. If your money is not safe in a bank, where is it safe? If people who you didn't vote for, have never met, who don't understand your circumstances in any way, can simply take your money, what is the world coming to? Who can you trust?
And to say 'well there's lots of 'laundered' ill-gotten Russian Mafia money in Cypriot banks' is irrelevant. If it's illegal money then do something about that illegality. Use the law as it is designed to be used. Don't use it as an excuse to just steal that and other monies legitimately held by normal people. Money which, incidentally, has already been taxed by the local Government and some of which will already have found its way back to paying for these unelected fuckwits in Brussels/Strasbourg.
It's like Mr Hitler saying: 'there's some dodgy money in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Fuck it we'll take the Sudetenland and then move eastwards.'
The Eurocrats owe their entire cushy lifestyles to the EU and will do anything in their power to keep this failed project going, including the complete sell-out of the people they're supposed to be representing. The Cypriot deal, roundly rejected by that Island's Government and it's people last week, has now been forced through in such a way that the interested parties don't even get to vote on it. Is that democracy? Does that follow the EU ideals of accountability, fairness for all? Recognition of minorities and the overriding founding principle of cooperation in such a way as to make future wars impossible?
I've blogged before about what I called 'economic blitzkrieg' and also about the 'end of democracy in Europe' - the take-over of Europe by Germany, not with tanks, but banks. It seems to be coming to pass right now.
And remember that Germany is booming. Unemployment is less than 6% while it is over 25% in Southern Europe. Because Germany is enjoying a massively favourable exchange rate compared to what it would be if it still had the Deutschmark (because the exchange rate is measured in a way which includes the much weaker economies elsewhere in Europe) while at the same time having an almost captive audience for its goods and services. And the smaller, poorer, less industrially strong or efficient countries, which always used to be able to devalue their currencies and thereby become more competitive again, simply cannot do this now. Which means that they're (technical economic term) fucked.
It is becoming a German take-over of continental Europe and we're just now starting to see what that will mean for ordinary people who don't toe the German line. But this situation has been created by Germany (strictly speaking the EU but the terms are effectively interchangeable) allowing countries to join the EU and the Euro who had no hope of ever meeting the entry criteria economically (I won't bore you with those criteria, but you can take a look here and here). Then Germany got these countries 'hooked' on cheap money, gave them massive financial aid (which most of them promptly pissed up the wall as Germany knew they would) and now they are almost entirely beholden to Germany and the EU to have enough money to eat (pay their public sector workers including the police).
I think that the EU has become such a laughing stock over the years, on issues like straight bananas, health and safety, human rights etc., that no-one is really bothering to take any notice any more. And that's a shame, because if we don't take notice - really take notice - right now, it will be too late and the values and freedoms that our soldiers, in their millions during the last two unpleasantnesses, spilled blood to preserve, will have disappeared.
Cyprus has been a major blunder by the EU and the hard line has been more about upcoming elections in Germany (where the population are also increasingly anti-EU by the way) than anything else. But it has shown the potentially evil, undemocratic and all-consuming power that the EU can now wield. From unelected premiers imposed on Italy to stealing - yes it is stealing it's not a 'levy' FFS - the bread out of people's mouths in Cyprus.
And now they're (the EU) capping what people can withdraw, controlling capital transfers, not allowing people to leave the country with serious amounts of money and limiting card transactions to €500 per month. How is that a 'free movement of people, trade and money', as per the EU principles? see Here for details.
I also happen to think that if I wanted to find a group from which to steal money, the Russian Mafia would not be high on my list of targets, but that's another matter.
The Dutch and Swedes are also starting to lose faith in the EU but leadership is unlikely to come from those places. France is effectively bankrupt and will do whatever Germany tells it to do (as usual). Most of the other EU member states don't have a pot to piss in. The only hope for the independence of smaller (i.e. non-German) countries in Europe now probably lies with the UK. And we're not closely involved with the shambles that it is becoming (although we're paying massively into it).
I hope that the Euro will disappear up its own rectum because of the fundamental flaws in the system, but, as I say, these people will do almost anything - things, like this week in Cyprus which I think even Mr Hitler would have blanched at - to keep the thing going. If the wheels don't come off we're all in for a great deal of further pain and, in my humble opinion, I think that the EU could end up creating the very thing that it was set up in the 1950s to guard against; war and renewed conflict in Europe and beyond.
And now a joke to lighten the mood... not really. Thanks for reading, sleep well if you can/aren't already.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't we go to war, twice, in the last century to protect ourselves from unelected tyranny, overpowering and self-interested dictatorship from Germany? To secure our freedom to elect our own representatives, to retain our own national identity and the ability to live in peace, work hard, earn money, pay for our material needs, daily comforts and, ideally, a comfortable and secure retirement?
At the heart of that, almost central to it as far as 'ordinary' people are concerned is the assurance that one can rely on one's bank to keep one's money safe. Indeed Governments used to advise people not to keep their cash under the mattress, but instead to put it in the bank 'where it will be safe'. Safe as the bank of England. Or Safe as houses they used to say. That might have a somewhat hollow ring to it if you're in Spain or Ireland or many parts of the US at this moment in time, but you get my drift.
So what we're now seeing in Cyprus where unelected Eurocrats in Brussels have decided simply to take people's money out of their bank accounts is, in my opinion, a grave and serious threat to the stability of the civilised world. If your money is not safe in a bank, where is it safe? If people who you didn't vote for, have never met, who don't understand your circumstances in any way, can simply take your money, what is the world coming to? Who can you trust?
And to say 'well there's lots of 'laundered' ill-gotten Russian Mafia money in Cypriot banks' is irrelevant. If it's illegal money then do something about that illegality. Use the law as it is designed to be used. Don't use it as an excuse to just steal that and other monies legitimately held by normal people. Money which, incidentally, has already been taxed by the local Government and some of which will already have found its way back to paying for these unelected fuckwits in Brussels/Strasbourg.
It's like Mr Hitler saying: 'there's some dodgy money in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Fuck it we'll take the Sudetenland and then move eastwards.'
The Eurocrats owe their entire cushy lifestyles to the EU and will do anything in their power to keep this failed project going, including the complete sell-out of the people they're supposed to be representing. The Cypriot deal, roundly rejected by that Island's Government and it's people last week, has now been forced through in such a way that the interested parties don't even get to vote on it. Is that democracy? Does that follow the EU ideals of accountability, fairness for all? Recognition of minorities and the overriding founding principle of cooperation in such a way as to make future wars impossible?
I've blogged before about what I called 'economic blitzkrieg' and also about the 'end of democracy in Europe' - the take-over of Europe by Germany, not with tanks, but banks. It seems to be coming to pass right now.
And remember that Germany is booming. Unemployment is less than 6% while it is over 25% in Southern Europe. Because Germany is enjoying a massively favourable exchange rate compared to what it would be if it still had the Deutschmark (because the exchange rate is measured in a way which includes the much weaker economies elsewhere in Europe) while at the same time having an almost captive audience for its goods and services. And the smaller, poorer, less industrially strong or efficient countries, which always used to be able to devalue their currencies and thereby become more competitive again, simply cannot do this now. Which means that they're (technical economic term) fucked.
It is becoming a German take-over of continental Europe and we're just now starting to see what that will mean for ordinary people who don't toe the German line. But this situation has been created by Germany (strictly speaking the EU but the terms are effectively interchangeable) allowing countries to join the EU and the Euro who had no hope of ever meeting the entry criteria economically (I won't bore you with those criteria, but you can take a look here and here). Then Germany got these countries 'hooked' on cheap money, gave them massive financial aid (which most of them promptly pissed up the wall as Germany knew they would) and now they are almost entirely beholden to Germany and the EU to have enough money to eat (pay their public sector workers including the police).
I think that the EU has become such a laughing stock over the years, on issues like straight bananas, health and safety, human rights etc., that no-one is really bothering to take any notice any more. And that's a shame, because if we don't take notice - really take notice - right now, it will be too late and the values and freedoms that our soldiers, in their millions during the last two unpleasantnesses, spilled blood to preserve, will have disappeared.
Cyprus has been a major blunder by the EU and the hard line has been more about upcoming elections in Germany (where the population are also increasingly anti-EU by the way) than anything else. But it has shown the potentially evil, undemocratic and all-consuming power that the EU can now wield. From unelected premiers imposed on Italy to stealing - yes it is stealing it's not a 'levy' FFS - the bread out of people's mouths in Cyprus.
And now they're (the EU) capping what people can withdraw, controlling capital transfers, not allowing people to leave the country with serious amounts of money and limiting card transactions to €500 per month. How is that a 'free movement of people, trade and money', as per the EU principles? see Here for details.
I also happen to think that if I wanted to find a group from which to steal money, the Russian Mafia would not be high on my list of targets, but that's another matter.
The Dutch and Swedes are also starting to lose faith in the EU but leadership is unlikely to come from those places. France is effectively bankrupt and will do whatever Germany tells it to do (as usual). Most of the other EU member states don't have a pot to piss in. The only hope for the independence of smaller (i.e. non-German) countries in Europe now probably lies with the UK. And we're not closely involved with the shambles that it is becoming (although we're paying massively into it).
I hope that the Euro will disappear up its own rectum because of the fundamental flaws in the system, but, as I say, these people will do almost anything - things, like this week in Cyprus which I think even Mr Hitler would have blanched at - to keep the thing going. If the wheels don't come off we're all in for a great deal of further pain and, in my humble opinion, I think that the EU could end up creating the very thing that it was set up in the 1950s to guard against; war and renewed conflict in Europe and beyond.
And now a joke to lighten the mood... not really. Thanks for reading, sleep well if you can/aren't already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)