In the 2010 May elections, the UK government found itself in a hung parliament situation. Although no particular party had won this election, negotiations began between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib-Dem Party had the balance of power, it was up to them who they would associate themselves with. The balance of power was immediately angled against the previous Labour Party government, as Cameron insisted that Labour Party leader at the time Gordon Brown has lost his right to govern. To exclude Labour, the Conservatives allied with a Liberal Democrat Party, manipulating Nick Clegg into a coalition government . This coalition majored in seats on the Conservative side, and so the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was content to allow David Cameron to take the lead, stating that it was only right. This meant a reversal on some of the policies in which Clegg had committed to during his election campaign. The Conservatives had a minority of seats, and together the Lib Dem and Labour held the majority coalition above a Lib-Dem Conservative coalition. (It was more logical on this basis to produce a Lib-Labour coalition). While it can be argued that nobody voted for either of these parties in the majority, it seems clear that the will of this coalition government outweighs a democratic desire of the people of Britain. Rather than risk running a new election, this so called Con-Dem coalition government took the initiative, without mandate to do so, to begin preparation of austerity measures. The buzzwords rang out, "There's no alternative."
What we've seen since is very little change to the Conservative manifesto outside the area of deepening the deficit reduction rate with more severe cuts than first proposed. Yet we have seen actions taken that were not covered in the manifesto, other than the bewilderingly endless comparisons it draws in parallel to the Labour Party's actions in recent years and how it aims to change them. The originally titled Big Business plan was also given a more acceptable, family friendly name, the Big Society. This plan suggests an inclusion of everybody, but the coalition Government, although it claims to be the most family friendly government to date, targets spending and cuts funding to families and single parents and is represented by a leader with a largely patronizing personality. If there is any family friendly government here, then it needs to show it through community support. How on earth can it do this by removing itself from the responsibility of care?
What is clear is that cuts will have to be made so that a gradual repay of the deficit can be met. But the suggested cuts are casually regarded as necessary. This simply isn't true, and some alternative cuts may just as easily be suggested. Furthermore the Conservative Party has proposed to make an alteration in the tax acts 1988 - 2009, whereby large businesses with foreign branches are not taxed twice on the same earnings. This means that on foreign grounds, companies will not be taxed on the earnings made outside the UK, which would be enough to pay off the original tax when funds are transferred back. Essentially, banks and large business corporations are heading towards an era of paying virtually nothing in comparison to earnings. These same business corporations exploit the struggling competition, smaller firms or even the NHS, by starving them of government spending, the likes of which a corporate tax accumulation for the country, on foreign earnings, would probably be able to stabalise at good standards. This it claims to do, on their own basis; privatization! Every struggling firm, company and government body will eventually fall victim to this avaricious and irresponsible market strategy. The old 'Death and Taxes' statement is becoming a thing of the past for these would-be invincible corporations and private banking businesses, the aging bureaucracy systemically ensures big business survival.
When the UK opted out of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) several exceptions were delineated for the country. These protocols prevent the United Kingdom from moving to the third stage of EMU (Economic and Monetary Union). In other words, to keep it's currency from becoming the Euro, certain articles will not apply to the united kingdom. These are:
* It's powers in the field of monetary policy are not affected. (Monetary policy such as spending remains under national law)
* Is not subject to the Treaty relating to excessive deficits
* Is not not concerned by the provisions of the Treaty relating to the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), the European Central Bank (ECB) of regulations and decision adopted by those institutions.
However, this means the UK's voting rights are exempt from acts of the EU council concerning:
* Fixing of exchange rates between currencies of Member States that move to the third stage and adopt the Euro.
* The appointment of the President, Vice-President and the other 4 members of the Executive Board of the ECB.
(The Treaty adds...)
But the UK may change it's notification to adopt the single EMU currency on the following conditions:
* The UK gov. & Parliament take a decision in this respect (with or without a referendum, depending on national law);
* The UK meets the convergence criteria laid down by the Treaty establishing the European Community.
This convergence criteria is based on the 5 economic tests that tailor to the EU's policies, to which Gordon Brown was aiming to achieve (convergence of business cycles, flexibility, investment, financial services and growth stability and jobs). Although a 2003 report suggested that this is not in the UK's national interests yet, are the motives well on the way to establishing the single currency?
No surprise here but, absolutely not. But this is nothing to do with the will and desires of the people, because if it was in the interest of business, the full EMU merger would be proposed very quickly. The Conservative Party's business affairs have been well angled at making sure agreements are made with strong nations during this financial crisis, such as Kuwait, China and the US. France's President Sarkozy had recently urged Britain to join the eurozone, during a meeting originally set to concern defence strategies, in order to strengthen the solidarity for the Euro. Although it's true the pound is decreasing and the British economy is threatened by a downgrade to its AAA credit rating by Standard and Poors, joining the Euro would be a direct contradiction to the Conservative Party's political ambitions.
How else would they be able to manipulate interest rates under Brussels by shifting business onto grounds with lower tax rates? How else would they be able to manipulate Tax laws so that foreign businesses can suck in a large proportion of wealth, to which the UK's public will see no benefit? How else can they control illegitimate licensing for arms exports to foreign allies, or act out deregulations the likes of which brought on the very financial crisis we are now enduring? Is it all only to be exploited again in this vicious circle? This is all to benefit a Party with a duel agenda, not to protect the sovereignty of the pound and the UK. The process has been described as Britain having one foot in and one foot out of European policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment