open Democracy News Analysis - oD Today - Comments

Toque on "Bring Westminster lobbying into the open - My idea for Power2010"

Toque — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:02:37 +0000

Sounds like a good idea to me Tom, I'm sure the big beasts on the Tory frontbenches will already be renegotiating their contracts with tobacco firms, missile manufacturers and hedge funds.

I've been up in Yorkshire, so sorry for not coming back to you sooner. As I think you may have guessed I don't really have much to add to David's "Game Changer" post, but I've given Power2010 a late plug here.

KJames on "Blair to be Our President"

KJames — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:39:15 +0000

How can a discredited man, who led the UK into an illegal war, into recession, whose expense claims seem to have gone missing, who is so obviously out for himself possibly be rewarded with the Presidency. This is the same man who ran away to the USA asap after losing his job as Prime Minister. He didnt even remain in Europe. This must demonstrate his commitment to Europe. The fact that he has a higher calling, money and self importance. It would be a travesty to put him in this position.

Baba on "Medical abortion: a revolution for women's reproductive rights"

Baba — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:21:08 +0000

Women should get their right.

JFox on "Avoiding the worst: International economic cooperation and domestic politics"

JFox — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:33:21 +0000

Tony:

I read Frieden as calling for more of the same, in contrast to what he sees as a retreat into protectionism.
My contention is that Free Trade in the version foisted on the world for the last few decades is already fundamentally protectionist. It has been a policy of the strong - rarely if ever of the weak. And it has failed to achieve what it says on the label.

The formal international agreements that underpin free trade tend to leave the signatories unable to address changes in domestic economic conditions - regardless of the will of the people and their governments. Are these agreements nonetheless good for us? Take NAFTA as an example - one of whose signatories is a middle income developing country - Mexico. Since entering the NAFTA, Mexico has witnessed a significant growth in inequality, very large increases in staple food prices (corn, beans, chiles) which has severely affected the poor, and a large and still growing trade deficit in agricultural products (against consistent pre-NAFTA surpluses). Mexico post NAFTA became Latin-America's number one producer of multi-millionaires - and of people living in impoverished circumstances. My point is that Frieden's case rests on a misreading of the way so-called Free Trade has worked in practice. We are not suddenly entering a period of protectionism, we have been living in a protectionist paradigm for several decades, and the recent emergence of "protectionist" policies that he observes merely exposes to view some of the pipework of the underlying neo-liberal model. I believe the model is not viable in the long term and that we need to look for an alternative way of administering economic life.

Your second question is puzzling. You will not find in my previous contribution here, or in anything else I have written, any suggestion that I oppose egalitarian policies. On the contrary. I do, however, believe that citizens often know where their interests lie better than governments, whose members are all-too-often drawn from narrow intellectual and economic elites. Where I also part company with Frieden is not in his call for social and economic justice at a time of crisis (how could I?), but in his faith in international rules and regulations, in other words in tying down nations to sets of unalterable principles that may or may not be in their medium and long term interests and that are not, by definition, sensitive to changes of circumstance or the evolving wishes of electorates. The call for rules seems to reflect a monotheistic view of the world, the idea that there can be only one theology, one answer to the challenges of human economic interaction and that this should be imposed on everyone by dictat from a supranational body. It is deeply undemocratic; and history shows that it is not the way western countries became rich. Fostering autonomy and maximum room for manoeuvre within a framework of international law seems to me the more viable and honest procedure; and it is in any case the one that the most powerful countries (and corporations) will adopt regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Jeremy

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:37:37 +0000

Signs of the times.

We can still keep the letters UK. They would be the anagram of United = "Untied".

A Greek of my acquaintance once said "We know all about Empire. We had one once and have yet to recover from losing it."

The Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" model still holds good. The English established the British Empire, by annexing Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The rest is history. At present the English are at the "bread and circuses" stage of disintegration of Empire. As long as they have football on Saturday night, takeaway pizza and a six-pack, the English will remain quiet. Once the bread and circuses era passes we can expect the next stage will be the appearance of the barbarians in Parliament.

Could we also expect to eventually end up with an Italian style democracy, which is one of the outcomes of the Fall of Imperial Rome.

The Cornish Democrat on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

The Cornish Democrat — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:14:24 +0000

Yes France THE centralised Jacobin state that forces national identity and republican state into the same box, from which emerges the French Republic une et indivisible.

Not likely to let Brittany, Corsica, Alsace or its bits of the Basque Country or Catalonia go without a struggle.

But these solid seemingly indestructible states can often provide the biggest surprises.

However yes a sovereign Cornwall within a federal Europe is also tempting.

The Cornish Democrat

Alex Buchan on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:29:14 +0000

I would like to add to the analysis presented in the article by discussing its obverse 'Britain and Scotland: A Case of Split Identity'. The following may seem abstruce but I feel it is important to have as full a picture as possible in order to identify what we are dealing with.

Scotland didn't so much have 'the institutional trappings' of a distinct nation as a lack, on the ground, until the modern era, of British-wide institutions, ditto for Ireland. This was the unique feature of the UK state.

It was a feature built in from the beginning and always demanded a certain amount of creative ambiguity/dissembling on the part of politicians. The situation may have been changed by devolution, but there is nothing new in how the political class is behaving. Because it has been going on for so long it is part of the DNA of the British system, which is why it will not be eradicated until that system is itself replaced.

The position in Scotland was that everything was duplicated and, like the English, Scots saw their separate state institutions as Scottish and British at the same time. Even the monarchy and the army, two of the very few British-wide institutions, stressed their separate Scottish lineages.

The monarchy, self consciously, created a distinct Scottish identity for itself, including having duplicate orders of chivalry, to replicate the 'Order of the Garter' The army encouraged Scots to identity with the kilt and the bagpipes.

The fact that the only truly British-wide institution: Parliament [and its political parties], was located in England, meant that, regardless of the efforts of the monarchy and army, there was always a limit to the extent that Scots could complete their blurring of Scottish and British identities.

This situation was made more complex with the arrival of a new Britishness in the early 20th cent. in the form of the Labour movement, the welfare state [including the NHS], the broadcast media and nationalised industries. All of these broke up the earlier constitutional status quo by being organised on a British-wide basis. Their decline, especially during the Thatcher period, has lead to a reemergence of the ascendance of earlier constitutional status quo.

What is left of these British-wide institutions is therefore under pressure to duplicate so as to be acceptable in Scotland. The BBC has tried to withstand pressure for a separate Scottish 6 o'clock news, but, nevertheless, tries to portray itself as having a separate Scottish corporate identity in how it presents both BBC 0ne and Two.

This is only a stab at an attempt to outline the differences in how things look from different sides of the border. Devolution was meant to placate the Scottish desire for duplicate Scottish institutions at all levels. Scots are unlikely to move quickly towards independence because what they want more than anything is for their right to duplicate institutions within the union to be enshrined.

This is a dynamic the UK state, in its many guises, has been trying to grapple with since its inception. The political class therefore is perplexed when the English public takes exception, because it sees itself as doing all of this in order to secure Scotland for England/Britain [note Tony Blair's comment on 'Barnett' being a small price to pay].

Zen9 on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Zen9 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:56:11 +0000

For this to work we need a narrative of our history.

but NOT a history of England, rather a history of the English. None of this mucking around with Roman Britain, obscuring and confusing the issue.

Carole E on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Carole E — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:43:56 +0000

My Grandfather was naturalised in 1913. My grandmothers father never bothered, her own mother's parents also came from another country. My Mum & her siblings considered themselves Londoners, English & British in that order. Consider Prince Naseem, the boxer. He is "Yorkshire" first. The people of the post WWII wave of migration & their descendents who live in England are equally & uniquely English. Consider how often people allow themselves a "regional" identity, perhaps because this particular national identity has been suppressed!

Carole E on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Carole E — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:25:28 +0000

Over the past 15 years or so I've often argued that our "BME" brethren need to take "ownership" of their &/or their children's Englishness, just as they would allow a relative in Wales or Scotland their Welsh or Scottishness. "Britishness" is just too broad and not easy to provide an adequate description. We in England seem to have lost the right to call ourselves English, & I think politicians feel it's been tainted by association with extremist right groups. That may be one of the reasons for their reluctance to use the word - but that is secondary to the fiction of a properly British government!

gelosgrapos on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

gelosgrapos — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:39 +0000

@britologywatch you are absolutely right that scratch the surface and it is Englishness rather than the more all inclusive and arguably nebulous Britishness that ethnic minorities identify with.

From personal experience that is certainly the case.

However part of the reason that one has to "weedle this out" in any research is because of the perceived strength of Englishness and whether real or not the degree of "exclusivity" that Englishness represents.

Indeed it is this exclusivity and social conditioning that has sustained Englishness and as you rightly highlight purposefully linked it so closely to Britishness.

It is also this delusion that drives the establishment who continuos to "sell" this idea and refuses to address the issue with any real reform.

My fear however is that having let the devolution genie out of the bottle it is the other nations led by Scotland that will set the agenda putting England on the back-foot.

Interestingly similar parallels can be drawn with Spain another nation based on the supremacy of one region in their case Castile and in language terms castilian, even though the background to the enforcement of this castilian concept has been less subtle than in the UK with the likes of the Franco dictatorship.

Nevertheless repeated democratic governments have failed or are reluctant to address the issue resulting in building fervent Basque, Catalan and to a lesser extent Galician nationalism. In their case it can only end positively with the creation of a federal Spain or negatively in the break up of what we now know as Spain the nature of the result depending on ones politics.

In the meantime as an issue it is hampering the economic growth potential of the country as a whole as the individual regions dig their heels especially if they hold the balance of power on a variety of issues whilst the national government cynically panders to them.

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:17:48 +0000

No offence Cornish Democrat, but independence from France is a highly unlikely outcome for Brittany. Not that I, as a believer in the independence of all nations from non-nation states, would oppose such a move. Frankly (no French pun intended), I think Cornwall has more chance of full independence from the UK!

Jim on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Jim — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:42:21 +0000

I think this article expresses very well sentiments that I have felt for some time, but have not quite managed to articulate. The key to constitutional renewal is to ignore the "UK" and start afresh. I don't altogether agree that the British establishment is in trauma following devolution. The real trauma is yet to come, with full Scottish independence. That will really expose the "British" project for the hollow shell that it is.

I was briefly involved a few years ago in a think-tank excercise to redefine Britishness. A series of seminars was completely unable to define what it was or what it stood for. The only value they could come up with was "tolerance". I might add "apathy", with the benefit of hindsight.

The Cornish Democrat on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:17:32 +0000

You'll have to get the Dukes permission first, but a union with an independent Brittany would be tempting.

The Cornish Democrat

Hendre on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Hendre — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:50:25 +0000

“native British people, including the English, have been increasingly identifying with the traditional four / five British nations ...”

I’ve seen a lot of variations on this theme but it tends to ignore the fact that the Welsh undertook a nation-building exercise in the late Victorian/Edwardian period, which Kenneth O. Morgan has dubbed the ‘rebirth of a nation’. That period saw the birth of institutional Wales, and arguably, constitutional Wales, following the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that what we have seen over the 20th century is the process of universal suffrage/full participative democracy allowing Welsh and Scottish cultural identity to find greater political expression? Though in the case of Wales, somewhat cautiously.