Annoyed at being fined for failing to comply with EU
regulations, Elon Musk has demanded
that: “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual
countries”. Perhaps the EU should respond with the counter-demand that: “The
US should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual states”. Actually,
Musk might even agree with that in principle, if he had any principles – but it
looks as though his real beef is about any state, or co-ordinated alliance of states,
being big enough and strong enough to stand up to what he regards as the
natural order of things: rule by billionaire. The difference, though, is that
the US federal government has already been captured by the billionaires, and
doesn’t need to be broken up to facilitate their rule.
There are, and always have been, questions over how
much sovereignty (and in what fields) the EU’s member states should exercise
individually and how much they should share; but acting jointly on some issues and agreeing rules which all members must follow is undoubtedly advantageous in
a world where some corporations and individuals wield excessive power. It’s
easy to understand why monopolists would prefer to deal with a host of weaker
individual states on which they can impose their power. The real issue, though,
and it’s not one which the EU seems minded even to consider, let alone tackle,
is about how we collectively free ourselves from the increasingly oppressive
rule of kleptocrats and billionaires. There is nothing natural or inevitable about
the accumulation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands; it happens
because the laws and rules under which the economy operates have been written
to allow and facilitate it. But those laws and rules are made by humans, and
humans acting collectively could change them. If enough of us wanted to do so.
Posts
4 comments:
Bit of context on Musk. He is American enough to resent $100m fines over blue ticks and disclosure rules. He has in mind the First Amendment and so should we. Amercans like Trump enjoy sniping at the EU because € is rival to $. On your big question you, me and Musk agree. Subsidiarity is good. But only the US is actually doing anything. They are sending education back to the States, like abortion. If the US sent healthcare back to the Stated they would actually sort their horrible system. 50 different competing models + US to hold the ring. North Carolina (11.5m people, big health oroviders in situ) would handle health very well. What would you do with Wales, Borthlas? Is 3.5m enough to be self-sustaining?
"Is 3.5m enough to be self-sustaining?" In the context of the US, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that there are about twenty US states which have a smaller population than Wales, some of them much smaller. There are also a number of independent states around the world with a smaller population. They manage. I'm not enough of (or indeed any kind of!) an expert in healthcare to know the detail of how smaller countries do that, but I'd be very surprised if it did not involve a degree of collaboration and sharing with neighbours.
The issue in Wales isn't just about population size either - it's also about geography. Independence doesn't change the fact that it is easier to get from many parts of the north and middle of Wales to hospitals in England than to hospitals in the south. And there are parts of England where accessing facilities in Wales makes a lot of sense as well. Negotiating arrangements between Wales and England, particularly in relation to specialities of a rare nature, is just one small part of the negotiation process between a vote for independence and implementation, which I referred to in a recent post. And one of the reasons for believing that it will take a few years, not just a few weeks or months.
Sorry - I'm no longer Anonymous! I like your answer. My nightmare is that the US State most like Wales is Arkansas. Not just being the same population. But in having endemic corruption. Clinton got his start there, and it was all dreadful. Wales had a WDA which I liked, in its glory days anyway. Ditto AR, but the Clintons turned it into a private bank, political fund. What should Wales aim to be like? Isle of Man? Norway?
Are you really arguing that Wales has "endemic corruption" I certainly wouldn't argue that there is no corruption, or that transparency isn't sometimes lacking. And I don't doubt that there is something of a charmed back-scratching circle in Wales. I wouldn't defend either of those things. But outright corruption to the extent of being endemic? I'm not convinced about that.
As for the WDA, well, it certainly had its successes, although there were some failures as well. There was a problem of accountability though, to say nothing of political appointments made by a Tory Westminster government. And sometimes 'accountability' and political interference can end up looking rather similar. I always felt, though, that in abolishing it the baby was being ejected along with the bath water. The question is how to capture the best parts without repeating the worst. I'm not sure that anyone yet has an answer to that question.
Post a Comment