Why Global Capital Fears ‘Brexit’
By Helena Norberg-Hodge, Rupert Read & Thomas Wallgren
16 June, 2016
CommonDreams.org
CommonDreams.org
Trade treaties were a
hot button issue during the recent US presidential primary campaigns.
This represents an important victory for the people – for the grassroots
– whose voice is finally being heard. While it’s hard to know what
really lies behind Donald Trump’s opposition to the trade agreements,
it’s very significant that Bernie Sanders put Hillary Clinton on the
defensive about NAFTA and led her to take a stand against the
TransPacific Partnership (TPP). In rejecting these trade deals,
political leaders are going against the top-down pressure from global
corporations and banks. We must of course be alert to the fact that
politicians pander to voters while seeking election, but once in power
they only seem to hear the voice of big money. Nevertheless, the fact
that awareness about the trade treaties has become so widespread is
itself a huge victory. Now that these corporate-friendly deals are
seeing the light of day, it is unlikely that future trade agreements
will be easy, automatic victories for global capital.
In the UK, meanwhile, another fierce
debate is underway: voters in Britain will soon decide whether or not to
remain in the European Union. Although this issue parallels – and is in
fact linked to – the debate around trade treaties, most voices in favor
of Brexit seem to offer little more than narrow nationalism, xenophobia
and racism. Such associations make it feel impossible for most Greens
and progressive thinkers on the left to vote ‘Leave’ in the upcoming UK
referendum.
And that settles it in the minds of
some: one ‘has’ to vote ‘Remain’. Anything else feels ‘unprogressive’,
reactionary, even downright dangerous.
However, there are powerful arguments against the European Economic Union. In all five Nordic countries – Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark – there has been a very powerful critique of the EU from an ecological, cultural, global solidarity and democratic perspective. A large proportion of the population in those countries realized that the impetus to link countries together was primarily based on a misguided notion of economic growth. However, these arguments didn’t reach the English-speaking world, and today on both sides of the debate in Britain this misguided notion continues to prevail.
However, there are powerful arguments against the European Economic Union. In all five Nordic countries – Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark – there has been a very powerful critique of the EU from an ecological, cultural, global solidarity and democratic perspective. A large proportion of the population in those countries realized that the impetus to link countries together was primarily based on a misguided notion of economic growth. However, these arguments didn’t reach the English-speaking world, and today on both sides of the debate in Britain this misguided notion continues to prevail.
In order to make sense of misleading
pro and con arguments in the media, we need to go behind the scenes to
examine the issues holistically. We need to look carefully at the
process of economic ‘integration’ that has been going on for several
generations now around the world.
At the regional, national and global
level, societies and ecosystems have been transformed in order to
accelerate economic growth. The emphasis has been on increasing
international trade and benefits to international traders, at great cost
to ecosystems, livelihoods, and democracy. It is important to
understand the formation of the EU in this context, but by no means do
the points we make here apply to the EU alone.
The EU is dedicated to corporate interests and economic globalization
The European Union is an extension of
the Bretton Woods institutions – The World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT).
It is widely assumed that the
European Union was formed in order to prevent conflict and in order to
avoid another depression. In the aftermath of the Second World War,
political elites and business leaders promoted the notion that economic
integration was a path to peace and harmony.
But the result was a form of economic
development – based on debt, global trade and consumerism – that
systematically undermined democracy and favored corporate interests
while hollowing out local economies worldwide. In country after country,
transnational corporations (TNCs) have been able to evade taxes by
‘offshoring’ their activities, and to bargain for lower tax rates and
higher subsidies by threatening to move where even less in taxes will be
demanded, and more in subsidies provided.
Today, interlinked multinational
banks and corporations constitute a de facto European government,
determining economic activity through the ‘European market’. Their vast
lobbying power has an overwhelming influence on the EU Commission and
the secretive Council. In other words, corporations run Europe.
Economic integration imposes human and ecological monoculture
Europe is home to a great variety of
cultures, languages and customs. The economic union is based on an
economic model that is eroding this diversity, which was born of human
adaptation to different climates and ecological realities. A fabric
consisting of mutually enriching and different cultural traditions is
being replaced by the uniform culture of consumerist ‘individualism’.
Previously, the many borders,
currencies, and differing regulations made trade difficult for big
business, while the diversity of languages and traditions put limits on
mass marketing. None of these were obstacles to businesses operating
within their own countries – in fact, the borders and cultural diversity
helped protect the markets of domestic producers from the predations of
mobile capital, helping to ensure their survival.
But for big corporations and
financial institutions, diversity is an impediment, whereas monoculture –
in all aspects of life, from seeds, fast food and clothing, to
architecture – is ‘efficient’. For them, a single Europe-wide market of
500 million people was an essential step to further growth: their
growth.
Meeting that goal required a single
currency, ‘harmonized’ regulations, the elimination of borders, and
centralized management of the European economy.
The EU economy increases pollution and CO2 emissions
The global economic model promoted in the EU increases pollution and fossil fuel use in a multitude of ways.
First of all, economic policies are
responsible for a concentration of jobs in ever-larger high-rise urban
centers. When people move into urban areas, net resource and energy
consumption tends to rise, massively increasing CO2 emissions and toxic
pollution.
Secondly, the EU subsidies system not
only wipes out family farms but paves the way for agribusinesses that
destroy soils and ecosystems, or employ cruel factory farming methods.
Thirdly, investments in
infrastructure and fossil fuel subsidies help to prop up the
energy-intensive system of mass production for mass consumption.
Moreover, most energy subsidies tend to support highly centralized power
systems, rather than more decentralized renewable energy.
Even worse is ‘redundant trade’: in a
typical year, Britain exports millions of liters of milk and thousand
of tonnes of wheat and lamb, while importing nearly identical amounts.
The cod caught off the coast of Scotland is shipped 5,000 miles to be
turned into fillets in China, then shipped back again.
This kind of wasteful trade – which
greatly overshadows the efforts of well-meaning individuals to reduce
their personal carbon footprints – actually benefits no one but massive
corporations. And it is not efficiency but a wide range of subsidies and
ignored costs that make it all possible.
National governments stripped of political power
At the same time as governments
subsidise big business, they must pay from their depleted treasuries to
retrain displaced workers, to mend the unraveling social fabric, and to
clean up the despoiled environments left behind by deregulated, mobile
corporations.
Forced to go hat-in-hand to banks,
countries can easily find themselves on a downward spiral, with interest
payments consuming an increasing proportion of national output. It’s no
wonder that so many governments today are struggling to stay afloat,
while global corporations and banks are flush with cash.
This has left nation-states
increasingly powerless to deliver what people need. They have lost the
power to protect their citizens from the impacts of international
capital and financial speculation. As a result, many people have lost
confidence in governments and democracy itself. They feel
disenfranchised and angered by the escalation of inequality-driven by
international market forces and rootless, profit-hungry corporations,
with the full complicity of the EU.
This is a dangerous situation, ripe for exploitation by extremist forces, including those of atavism and of outright fascism.
European government is not the answer
Many idealists see the EU as a
political bloc that has raised environmental and human rights standards
continentally and globally, and acted as a buffer to the United States.
There is much truth in this. And to greatly strengthen pan-European
collaboration with the aim of solving our global ecological and human
rights problems is clearly highly desirable.
However, this type of collaboration
does not need to – ought not to be allowed to – erode the rights of
smaller nation states to run their own affairs under clearly negotiated
agreements of environmental protection. We hold that the relatively high
standards in the EU have been a consequence of the integrity of the
democracies in many of the constituent countries, not a consequence of
creating a single market that benefits big business.
We would also argue that to assess
the overall contribution by the EU to global environment and human
rights affairs we must not look exclusively at the relatively benign EU
policies in these areas themselves but also at the consequences for
ecological justice of EU policies in trade and military policy.
In fact, the main impetus behind the
European Economic Union was the desire of big business to compete with
the US. And to a great extent, what we have today is a nascent United
States of Europe, competing with the US about market shares but also
working closely together with the US in preserving the hegemony of the
global North over the global South.
European democracy? If only …
Meanwhile, within the EU, the public
has very little power and ability to affect decisions. There is no
common public sphere where European citizens can get together to muster
democratic control of the European economy and the administrative power
concentrated in Brussels.
The European Parliament is weak, and,
more importantly, elections to it work mostly on a national-level
basis. There are no real European political parties and movements. Thus
the situation is even worse than it is at the national level: for at
least at the national level there is a public, a citizenry, a demos, a
press, a political debate.
It might appear that the solution is
to remove power from national governments and give it to a
democratically-controlled European government. There is something
completely understandable about this impulse. After all, there is a real
need for international co-operation around the political and ecological
crises gripping our planet.
But scaling up government means
increasing the distance between civic society and their representatives.
It would be a step backward to create a federal superstate of Europe.
Such a government would be virtually incapable of responding to the
diverse needs of half a billion people.
Democratic institutions need to
operate at a level that is comprehensible and accessible to people: at a
human scale. We must take seriously the possibility that global
democracy – people’s urge to care for the globe and for all its citizens
– can only be real if most functions are local and people’s dependence
on global trade and institutions is limited.
When presented by continent- and
global-level problems caused by businesses and untrammeled markets,
let’s increase international collaboration with the goal of scaling down
businesses and markets. This form of collaboration is fundamentally
different from scaling up government. It points in the opposite
direction!
The following point is then at the
heart of the very challenging position we find ourselves in: there is a
profound mismatch between politics at the national level, and economics
at the international level. Many well-intentioned ‘progressive’ / green /
‘Left’ people and organizations across the continent believe the best
response to this problem is to create a true (rather than a merely de
facto) European government. Yet this is likely to merely amplify the
control already exerted by corporations over the European economy.
The answer, instead, is to
decentralize the European economy. This will enable us to shape economic
activity to reduce waste and resource consumption while providing
meaningful livelihoods and restoring the environment. Through
decentralization and relocalization we also reassert democratic control
over our own destinies.
The way forward: localization
There is an alternative to
undermining our own people in order to enrich foreign corporations and
banks. It’s called ‘localization’ and it involves moving away from ever
more specialized production for export, towards prioritizing diversified
production to meet people’s genuine needs; away from centralized,
corporate control, towards more decentralized, local and national
economies.
This means encouraging greater
regional self-reliance, and using our taxes, subsidies and regulations
to support enterprises embedded in society, rather than transnational
monopolies.
A shift away from the global towards
the local is the most strategic way to tackle our escalating social and
ecological crises. Localization shortens the distance between producers
and consumers by encouraging diversified production for domestic needs,
instead of specialized production for export.
Localization does not mean
eliminating international trade, or reducing all economic activity to a
village level. It’s about shifting the power from transnational
corporations to democratically accountable entities, including nation
states. At the same time we need to build up regional and local
self-reliance. It’s about reclaiming power over our lives while
simultaneously shrinking our ecological footprint.
Localization – the benefits
In contrast with the make-believe of
derivatives and debt-based money, localization is founded in real
productivity for genuine human needs, with respect for the rich
diversity of cultures and ecosystems worldwide.
By shortening the distance between
production and consumption, localization minimizes transport, packaging,
and processing – thereby cutting down on waste, pollution, and
greenhouse gas emissions. This simultaneously increases resilience,
which will be needed to cope with the inevitable crises coming our way.
Localized economies rely more on
human labor and creativity and less on energy-intensive technological
systems. This increases the number of jobs while reducing the use of
natural resources.
By spreading economic and political
power among millions of individuals and small businesses rather than a
handful of corporate monopolies, localization provides the potential for
revitalizing the democratic process. Political power is no longer some
distant impersonal force, but is instead rooted in community.
As the scale and pace of economic
activity are reduced, anonymity gives way to face-to-face relationships,
and to a closer connection to Nature. This in turn leads to a more
secure sense of personal and cultural identity.
Localization is a remarkable
solution-multiplier, but it should not be mistaken for a complete
panacea. It offers no guarantee for peace and ecological wellbeing.
Going local needs to be pursued in full awareness of the need for
environmental and human rights protection that goes beyond local,
regional and national borders. It’s a prerequisite, a necessity in order
to build the accountable structures we need that respect and renew
diversity.
Localization, or decentralization,
was central to the thinking of the people’s movements in the Nordic
countries that have resisted full integration into the EU. In Norway,
the economic and political elites twice tried to achieve EU-membership
and were defeated, thanks to the campaigns for democracy and global
responsibility for environment and justice.
In Denmark and Sweden, membership in
the Eurozone has been rejected in several referenda after historic
grassroots campaigns. In Iceland, the popular support for EU membership
has always been weak. The first application for membership in the EU was
submitted in 2009 but suspended in 2013 when the pro-membership
government lost elections.
UK voters: think before you vote!
We are facing huge crises: the
frightening specter of climate change; the threat of nuclear
annihilation; the enormous problems of hypermobility and large-scale
migration …
These are all consequences of a
fixation on growth and technological ‘progress’. The leadership in both
Brexit and Remain are committed to promising more ‘economic growth’ to
the millions of people who are struggling to hold on to a job,
struggling to keep a roof over their heads.
The ‘growth’ that is being discussed
is actually supporting excessive global trade and global businesses and
banks. The very same process is handing over more wealth and power to
the 1%, to the detriment of the 99%. And this type of growth demands
ever-more energy for global infrastructures, including bigger airports,
ports and super-highways.
So we have a system that destroys
livelihoods while driving up CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution.
More and more people, including Nobel laureate economists, are
questioning this path.
There are some who would believe that
collaboration at the pan-European level could facilitate a path to
genuine economic decentralization. Others are convinced that those steps
to localize can best be taken by first leaving the EU. Still others
don’t favor either of these paths. We are not trying to tell UK readers
how (or even whether) to vote; we are asking you to help us shed light
on and bring sanity to this volatile situation.
Whichever way you vote, please reject
the glaringly stupid rhetoric in the media. Speak out, let your voice
be heard for ecological and economic sanity, for a fundamental
turnaround.
Helena Norberg-Hodge is founder and director of Local Futures
(International Society for Ecology and Culture). A pioneer of the “new
economy” movement, she has been promoting an economics of personal,
social and ecological well-being for more than thirty years. She is the
producer and co-director of the award-winning documentary, The Economics of Happiness, and is the author of Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh.
She was honored with the Right Livelihood Award for her groundbreaking
work in Ladakh, and received the 2012 Goi Peace Prize for contributing
to “the revitalization of cultural and biological diversity, and the
strengthening of local communities and economies worldwide.”
Rupert Read was a
Green Party councillor in Norwich and a candidate in the 2009 European
Parliamentary elections. He is Chair of the Green House thinktank.
Thomas Wallgren founded
the campaign Yes to the World - No the the EU before the Finnish
referendum on EU-membership in 1994. He is a member of the advisory
board of Corporate Europe Observatory and of the city council in
Helsinki for the Social Democrats.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
No comments:
Post a Comment