The United Nations. When the UN was formed after WW Two it must have created, particularly in the minds of older people, high hopes that they would not see any more mass destruction of lives and property, and that the world would be, indeed, a much nicer and safer place to live in.
I did have the honour of working for, on a short term contract, two of their agencies. One cannot deny that the different UN agencies have achieved a great deal in their specified fields. However in the very important field of controlling or preventing warfare or changing unjust regimes the UN has, I believe, only had limited success.
In dreams one can think that the mere threat of the UN using force to solve a problem would immediately solve it. That is how it should be but that threat, due to the use or potential use of a veto in the security council, is not even brought to bear. There are two or three glaringly obvious situations where the amount of force needed could easily be made available to the UN but, for reasons best known to members of the Security Council, the resolutions to use force are not agreed to or even debated.
Obviously when the UN was formed the key members, particularly, had their own agendas to follow, their own interests to safeguard, hence powerful nations formed the security council and secured the right to veto any resolution. How many of those nations would have become members if the body had been named The United Democratic Nations ? It would be interesting to know if such a title had been considered. It would be even more interesting if such a name change could be discussed today.
Frederick W Gilling 30/08/2009
Saturday 29 August 2009
Friday 28 August 2009
European Union
European Union, I am not aware of all of the implications for different countries who are members, or wish to be members, of the EU. I do know that in the UK there are very strong views as to membership. Many MPs and UK voters think that a referendum should be held in relation to ratifying proposed changes to EU regulations.
Is it possible for counties to have a choice, in all regards except one, as to the type of membership they to apply for? My suggestions as to suitable headings are listed below.
1/ Defence. Membership under this heading is essential. If a country wishes to become a member of the EU they must agree to comply with all of the obligations in relation to defence.
The following sections are not in any particular order and countries are free to choose, the list is not exhaustive.
2/ Economic. Under this heading a country must convert to the Euro and comply with all rules relating, specifically, to EU economics.
3/ Immigration.
4/ Health.
5/ Human Rights.
6/ Law.
7/ Agriculture and commercial fishing.
Two years or so ago the German Chancellor Angela Merkal, in a discussion about the EU, came out with words that approximated in meaning to stating that there had not been a war in Europe for 50 years.
During WW Two I think there were countless barbarous acts, both on an individual basis as well as on a much larger scale involving whole units or even armies. I have seen estimates of more than 50 million deaths during that war, this is an incredible number to contemplate.
I spent approx three and a half years in the British army, some of that time during WW Two but I did not see any action as such. I find it difficult to understand how some people can manifest
hate over generations. However I recall that when Yugoslavia broke up a friend said to me "Fred, they are fighting over something that happened fourteen hundred years ago".
I do not hate German or Japanese people, I can understand people who witnessed brutal acts, or whose close relatives or friends were killed, not finding it easy to forget. But generation after generation nursing a grudge is not, for me, so easy to understand.
If the EU prevents a war between member states or member states stand shoulder to shoulder with each other in resisting aggression then that alone, in my opinion, justifies the existence of the EU.
In my previous blog to this I put some ideas forward regarding "protectionism", I feel that the EU could well be a "grouping" such as I suggested and should consider if their best interests would be served by embracing, openly, some form of protectionism. Non EU member countries could well be members of such a bloc. To me it is glaringly obvious that a major watershed moment has already dawned, particularly for developed countries, and that the rule book for providing gainful employment for their populations has to be completely rewritten, and agreed to, by members of the developed countries. It could well transpire that some developed
countries could feel that their best interests would be served by becoming a member of a different trading bloc to which they previously belonged, and in which they traditionally operated.
If the playing field of world economies has to be levelled out it is essential that some form of control is maintained over the bulldozer drivers. This control must be exercised by governments driven by the desire, to make the world, in the long term, a better place. This can be done by generating and harnessing the "goodness" of people, there has to be a better driving force than greed.
Frederick W Gilling 29/08/2009
Is it possible for counties to have a choice, in all regards except one, as to the type of membership they to apply for? My suggestions as to suitable headings are listed below.
1/ Defence. Membership under this heading is essential. If a country wishes to become a member of the EU they must agree to comply with all of the obligations in relation to defence.
The following sections are not in any particular order and countries are free to choose, the list is not exhaustive.
2/ Economic. Under this heading a country must convert to the Euro and comply with all rules relating, specifically, to EU economics.
3/ Immigration.
4/ Health.
5/ Human Rights.
6/ Law.
7/ Agriculture and commercial fishing.
Two years or so ago the German Chancellor Angela Merkal, in a discussion about the EU, came out with words that approximated in meaning to stating that there had not been a war in Europe for 50 years.
During WW Two I think there were countless barbarous acts, both on an individual basis as well as on a much larger scale involving whole units or even armies. I have seen estimates of more than 50 million deaths during that war, this is an incredible number to contemplate.
I spent approx three and a half years in the British army, some of that time during WW Two but I did not see any action as such. I find it difficult to understand how some people can manifest
hate over generations. However I recall that when Yugoslavia broke up a friend said to me "Fred, they are fighting over something that happened fourteen hundred years ago".
I do not hate German or Japanese people, I can understand people who witnessed brutal acts, or whose close relatives or friends were killed, not finding it easy to forget. But generation after generation nursing a grudge is not, for me, so easy to understand.
If the EU prevents a war between member states or member states stand shoulder to shoulder with each other in resisting aggression then that alone, in my opinion, justifies the existence of the EU.
In my previous blog to this I put some ideas forward regarding "protectionism", I feel that the EU could well be a "grouping" such as I suggested and should consider if their best interests would be served by embracing, openly, some form of protectionism. Non EU member countries could well be members of such a bloc. To me it is glaringly obvious that a major watershed moment has already dawned, particularly for developed countries, and that the rule book for providing gainful employment for their populations has to be completely rewritten, and agreed to, by members of the developed countries. It could well transpire that some developed
countries could feel that their best interests would be served by becoming a member of a different trading bloc to which they previously belonged, and in which they traditionally operated.
If the playing field of world economies has to be levelled out it is essential that some form of control is maintained over the bulldozer drivers. This control must be exercised by governments driven by the desire, to make the world, in the long term, a better place. This can be done by generating and harnessing the "goodness" of people, there has to be a better driving force than greed.
Frederick W Gilling 29/08/2009
Protectionism
Protectionism
Several of the world's leaders have been quite vocal in stating that protectionism is a "bad" policy. Some of them may have been a little cynical and may have just been paying lip service to the principle. I feel that most of the Western World, that is to say the countries normally referred to as "developed", will not be able to compete with China, India and several of the Pacific Rim countries when it comes to the cost of an article.
The size and complexity of the "articles" have long since left tee shirts, sets of cutlery
and toys far behind. Television sets and various very technical electronic "gizmos" will be supplemented by powerful motorcycles, cars, trucks and even commercial aircraft in the not too distant future.
If China and India really put their minds to it they could also flood the world, for example, with top class medical personnel and professional engineers, of all disciplines, prepared to work for lower salaries than their "Western" counterparts. Does protectionism also extend to offering employment to such highly qualified experts.
As I see it the world could well, with advantage, divide up into areas or groups of countries that share common ties such as race, language, defence, geographic location and, possibly, religion. Sheer logic could well, in some cases, override inherent nationalism and dictate the composition of some such groups. Each group will try to be self sufficient in regard to defence, food, power supplies and commodities. Trading within the group will be freely encouraged and the population, within the group, will learn to accept the situation as it is.
Trading between the groups will be on a mutually agreed basis, almost on a barter system. National and world security will be based on the principle that any suggestion of a conventional war will lead to the mutually destructive use of nuclear or chemical weapons.
Protectionism on such an open basis may eventually lead to a better understanding of the problems facing the world and could even encourage the best developed areas to adopt a more philanthropic attitude to areas of the world in need.
Frederick W Gilling 28/08/2009
Several of the world's leaders have been quite vocal in stating that protectionism is a "bad" policy. Some of them may have been a little cynical and may have just been paying lip service to the principle. I feel that most of the Western World, that is to say the countries normally referred to as "developed", will not be able to compete with China, India and several of the Pacific Rim countries when it comes to the cost of an article.
The size and complexity of the "articles" have long since left tee shirts, sets of cutlery
and toys far behind. Television sets and various very technical electronic "gizmos" will be supplemented by powerful motorcycles, cars, trucks and even commercial aircraft in the not too distant future.
If China and India really put their minds to it they could also flood the world, for example, with top class medical personnel and professional engineers, of all disciplines, prepared to work for lower salaries than their "Western" counterparts. Does protectionism also extend to offering employment to such highly qualified experts.
As I see it the world could well, with advantage, divide up into areas or groups of countries that share common ties such as race, language, defence, geographic location and, possibly, religion. Sheer logic could well, in some cases, override inherent nationalism and dictate the composition of some such groups. Each group will try to be self sufficient in regard to defence, food, power supplies and commodities. Trading within the group will be freely encouraged and the population, within the group, will learn to accept the situation as it is.
Trading between the groups will be on a mutually agreed basis, almost on a barter system. National and world security will be based on the principle that any suggestion of a conventional war will lead to the mutually destructive use of nuclear or chemical weapons.
Protectionism on such an open basis may eventually lead to a better understanding of the problems facing the world and could even encourage the best developed areas to adopt a more philanthropic attitude to areas of the world in need.
Frederick W Gilling 28/08/2009
Saturday 15 August 2009
Summary of Party Free Politics and World Financial Armageddon
In Politics One to Four I advocated that, here in the UK, we should adopt a system of government that does not involve party politics, some of the suggestions I made are listed below in condensed form.
Persons wishing to be candidates for election must have lived in the constituency for the specified periods I mooted, they must not be members of a political party.
Voters can force "their " MP to resign.
MPs can force an MP to resign.
MPs can force any Minister or Deputy Minister to give up their office.
MPs elect the Prime Minister as well as any other Ministers or Deputies.
The speaker is not a MP but can be an ex MP. MPs can force the Speaker to resign.
MPs elect a Speaker when required.
I have suggested that the number of MPs could be reduced to 300 and that that 50 members, all elected, should be sufficient in the House of Lords. I have also suggested that more suitable names should be found for "Commons" and "Lords".
The recent and prolonged exposure of the advantage, that many MPs have taken, of various opportunities to greatly increase their financial affluence have been, I feel, absolutely mind blowing. [Kindly refer to the last paragraph in this blog] This drive by many MPs to enrich themselves is surely reflected in the rash symptomatic behaviour, albeit on a hugely larger scale, that led to the World Financial Armageddon. In my opinion the time is ripe for the drastic changes I have advanced regarding a more democratic and efficient way of governing the UK.
As I type these words, on 15/08/2009, there have been minor signs that have led to some experts suggesting that the worst of the "economic downturn" [oh what spin] is over, other authorities are much more cautious. In no way do I consider myself an expert on world economics [look where the experts have taken the world] but I just have the feeling, deep inside, that my choice of the word Armageddon to describe the state of the world's financial system cannot be faulted. In spite of all the evidence in support of this supposition there are signs, anything but minor, that the pieces are being picked up and attempts are being made to stick them back together, [along with more fantastic salaries and bonuses] in my opinion these attempts defy the totally logical assumption that something better has to be found. As a starting point every country in the world should nationalise their major banks. This statement will obviously give rise to instantaneous howls of derisory laughter. Can we all laugh at the way, seemingly countless, trillions of units of the world's currencies have been poured into the WORLD'S banking systems. This was to save the world from the effects of the Financial Armageddon that private ownership of the banks has created. In this the banks were ably supported by the various money making offspring that they fathered. Please, please do not tell me that, as with party politics, something better cannot, and must, be found.
This last paragraph returns to the matter of MPs expenses. A very revealing insight into the mindset of many MPs, in regard to their expenses, were the different attempts that were made to prevent details being published. This resulted, I would surmise, in many people, including me, reaching for a dictionary to see if there actually was a word "redact" and if so what did it mean, in the dictionary I used there there was some consolation in so far as it was qualified as "rare". Of real annoyance to me was an article in a magazine that drew my attention to the fact that Commons' officials, by mistake, shredded the documents pertaining to some of Mr Tony Blair's expenses for the period 2001-2. Is that the end of the story? If it is I do not think it should be. Surely there must be cross checks available, one source would be Mr Blair's bank statements or his copies of his claims for expenses; the article stated that the documents were the subject of a legal challenge. If the Commons officials involved did anything wrong they should be held to account. There should be a very thorough enquiry into this matter. Finally why should MPs be secretive about their home addresses; exposure to the public eye, and the subsequent risks involved go with the job.
Frederick W Gilling. 15/08/2009
Persons wishing to be candidates for election must have lived in the constituency for the specified periods I mooted, they must not be members of a political party.
Voters can force "their " MP to resign.
MPs can force an MP to resign.
MPs can force any Minister or Deputy Minister to give up their office.
MPs elect the Prime Minister as well as any other Ministers or Deputies.
The speaker is not a MP but can be an ex MP. MPs can force the Speaker to resign.
MPs elect a Speaker when required.
I have suggested that the number of MPs could be reduced to 300 and that that 50 members, all elected, should be sufficient in the House of Lords. I have also suggested that more suitable names should be found for "Commons" and "Lords".
The recent and prolonged exposure of the advantage, that many MPs have taken, of various opportunities to greatly increase their financial affluence have been, I feel, absolutely mind blowing. [Kindly refer to the last paragraph in this blog] This drive by many MPs to enrich themselves is surely reflected in the rash symptomatic behaviour, albeit on a hugely larger scale, that led to the World Financial Armageddon. In my opinion the time is ripe for the drastic changes I have advanced regarding a more democratic and efficient way of governing the UK.
As I type these words, on 15/08/2009, there have been minor signs that have led to some experts suggesting that the worst of the "economic downturn" [oh what spin] is over, other authorities are much more cautious. In no way do I consider myself an expert on world economics [look where the experts have taken the world] but I just have the feeling, deep inside, that my choice of the word Armageddon to describe the state of the world's financial system cannot be faulted. In spite of all the evidence in support of this supposition there are signs, anything but minor, that the pieces are being picked up and attempts are being made to stick them back together, [along with more fantastic salaries and bonuses] in my opinion these attempts defy the totally logical assumption that something better has to be found. As a starting point every country in the world should nationalise their major banks. This statement will obviously give rise to instantaneous howls of derisory laughter. Can we all laugh at the way, seemingly countless, trillions of units of the world's currencies have been poured into the WORLD'S banking systems. This was to save the world from the effects of the Financial Armageddon that private ownership of the banks has created. In this the banks were ably supported by the various money making offspring that they fathered. Please, please do not tell me that, as with party politics, something better cannot, and must, be found.
This last paragraph returns to the matter of MPs expenses. A very revealing insight into the mindset of many MPs, in regard to their expenses, were the different attempts that were made to prevent details being published. This resulted, I would surmise, in many people, including me, reaching for a dictionary to see if there actually was a word "redact" and if so what did it mean, in the dictionary I used there there was some consolation in so far as it was qualified as "rare". Of real annoyance to me was an article in a magazine that drew my attention to the fact that Commons' officials, by mistake, shredded the documents pertaining to some of Mr Tony Blair's expenses for the period 2001-2. Is that the end of the story? If it is I do not think it should be. Surely there must be cross checks available, one source would be Mr Blair's bank statements or his copies of his claims for expenses; the article stated that the documents were the subject of a legal challenge. If the Commons officials involved did anything wrong they should be held to account. There should be a very thorough enquiry into this matter. Finally why should MPs be secretive about their home addresses; exposure to the public eye, and the subsequent risks involved go with the job.
Frederick W Gilling. 15/08/2009
Sunday 2 August 2009
World Financial Armageddon. Part three.
World Financial Armageddon. Part three, condensed for blog.
Knowing my interest in politics and world finance a friend suggested that I should read "Who Runs This Place", this was written by the late Mr Anthony Sampson and published by John Murray in 2004. As I did not want my thinking to be influenced I did not read the book until after drafting out the short chapters of "A Musing Layman" from which I condensed blogs for my blogging site. Pages 247 to 276, and more, in "Who Runs This Place" give thought proviking insight into the various facets of how money is used [misused?] with the sole aim of making more money, often without any regard to the misery it can create.
Mr Sampson drew attention to the MPs' SelectCommittee on the Treasury. The Chief Executives of the big banks were questioned in connection with many aspects of finance, including credit cards, with the base rate at 3.5 percent one bank was charging 17,9 percent interest. [In the last few days with the bank rate at 0.5 percent the same complaints are being voiced.] This particular report was in respect of the Committee's meeting in October 2003. Surely at that time many high ranking financial officials, both in government and private institutions, must have known that a bubble was approaching bursting point. If they knew and did nothing about it they were drastically at fault, if they did not know then they were also drastically at fault, arguably even more so than those that did know. Irregardless of whose fault it was the taxplayers of the world's biggest economies are having to find the money to save gigantic banks from collapsing. When the dust settles the whys and wherefores of this bail out will provide the material for many learned papers.
The world has experienced the astronomical changes wrought by the French and Russian revolutions, these were events, basically, in individual countries. In my opinion, through present governments or ballot boxes, the time is ripe for every major economy to stage a world financial revolution by nationalising all of its major indigenous banks. In many major countries the taxpayers, because of the World Financial Armageddon, already own high percentages of large banks. A big surprise to me, and I suggest to many people, is that governments in virtual control of banks have not cracked the whip and told them what to do. In too many instances large banks and financial institutions have failed in at least one primary duty and that is to safeguard the money that belongs to their customers. I would, however, advise extreme caution in lending to small businesses. My reason for this is that many small businesses owed their success, or even creation, to the freak circumstances generated by the heady spend, spend and spend syndrome, fuelled for several years, by a seemingly never ending supply of borrowed money. Their chances of surviving in a harsher economic climate could well be slim. The reasoning for this may well be applicable to businesses other than small. This blog will be continued in World Financial Armageddon. Part four.
Frederick W Gilling Monday 03 August 2009
Knowing my interest in politics and world finance a friend suggested that I should read "Who Runs This Place", this was written by the late Mr Anthony Sampson and published by John Murray in 2004. As I did not want my thinking to be influenced I did not read the book until after drafting out the short chapters of "A Musing Layman" from which I condensed blogs for my blogging site. Pages 247 to 276, and more, in "Who Runs This Place" give thought proviking insight into the various facets of how money is used [misused?] with the sole aim of making more money, often without any regard to the misery it can create.
Mr Sampson drew attention to the MPs' SelectCommittee on the Treasury. The Chief Executives of the big banks were questioned in connection with many aspects of finance, including credit cards, with the base rate at 3.5 percent one bank was charging 17,9 percent interest. [In the last few days with the bank rate at 0.5 percent the same complaints are being voiced.] This particular report was in respect of the Committee's meeting in October 2003. Surely at that time many high ranking financial officials, both in government and private institutions, must have known that a bubble was approaching bursting point. If they knew and did nothing about it they were drastically at fault, if they did not know then they were also drastically at fault, arguably even more so than those that did know. Irregardless of whose fault it was the taxplayers of the world's biggest economies are having to find the money to save gigantic banks from collapsing. When the dust settles the whys and wherefores of this bail out will provide the material for many learned papers.
The world has experienced the astronomical changes wrought by the French and Russian revolutions, these were events, basically, in individual countries. In my opinion, through present governments or ballot boxes, the time is ripe for every major economy to stage a world financial revolution by nationalising all of its major indigenous banks. In many major countries the taxpayers, because of the World Financial Armageddon, already own high percentages of large banks. A big surprise to me, and I suggest to many people, is that governments in virtual control of banks have not cracked the whip and told them what to do. In too many instances large banks and financial institutions have failed in at least one primary duty and that is to safeguard the money that belongs to their customers. I would, however, advise extreme caution in lending to small businesses. My reason for this is that many small businesses owed their success, or even creation, to the freak circumstances generated by the heady spend, spend and spend syndrome, fuelled for several years, by a seemingly never ending supply of borrowed money. Their chances of surviving in a harsher economic climate could well be slim. The reasoning for this may well be applicable to businesses other than small. This blog will be continued in World Financial Armageddon. Part four.
Frederick W Gilling Monday 03 August 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)