Tag Archives: European Union

BREXIT – What Deal?

univestBREXIT – What Deal?

When David Cameron elected to engage in a referendum regarding UK membership of the EU his pronouncement was that he would seek much needed fundamental reform to the EU, or support an ‘out’ vote. These reforms included substantial issues such as curtailing the role of the European Court of Human Rights in UK determinations, to scrap the Human Rights Act, reclaiming sovereignty for both our parliament and our judicial system, and to have sanction over immigration into the UK.

What he achieved is zero reform; only some tweaking at the fringes which, until written into Treaty are no more than what the Courts call mitigating circumstances in determinations, the existing Treaty being the fundamental basis on which they will make determinations. Few, if any of the EU leaders who agreed this tweaking will be in office when the next Treaty is discussed, and the European Parliament can most certainly vote down any, if not all of the concessions. Thus why the ‘deal’ is already in the dim past of the EU referendum debate.

As a trained negotiator I have an unease about the lack of any substance to the ‘deal’ as Germany most certainly needs to keep us within. Did Cameron not have the heart for such a negotiation? Is there a deal behind the scenes regarding the future of Cameron? Was he the wrong man to negotiate? History may tell us the answer, but until then we must accept that the ‘deal’ does not remotely meet with the initial basis of the referendum.

I am not going to debase my discussion by using speculative monetary values, or the use and abuse of statistics. As it is clear to see in the media the business and financial community are divided on opinion based on their specific vested interests – thus irrelevant. As argued in previous blogs this debate is about the future of the people in the UK. All of the economic and political arguments pale against the right outcome for the British way of life. Business and finance will continue regardless of the choice made in June. As one dear lady so elegantly put it in a Jeremy Vine interview last week, ‘so-called experts built the Titanic, but not the Ark’.

I do not believe the people of the UK will engage with the current political and business debate. So let us bring the argument down to a reasonable comparator argument that anyone can understand. Our base will be a recently new golf club where the charter debenture holders (the people who essentially financed the building of the club) sought preferential treatment as part of their contribution. This creates a two-tiered system of membership even though much of their initial investment has been redeemed through subsequent debenture sales. What will happen over time is policy committee members will change, and privileges of the charter members will become fuzzy, and erode, until they have no more privileges than any other member, i.e. harmonising rights to all members. This is what will most certainly happen in the EU. Fuzzy memberships such as Norway, the UK, and Switzerland will be tolerated in the short-term, but over time the boundaries will be eroded until they are eradicated. In Political Risk parlance this is called creeping expropriation. If the UK elects to remain an EU member it will most certainly not retain any special status over time.

The generally accepted current situation of the EU is fragile, and in need of serious reform. So what is the future if the UK votes to remain within – uncertainty. What is the future if the UK votes to leave the EU – uncertainty. So what is the difference – control of the uncertainty. The UK is not a Switzerland or a Norway. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world – and carries much power and influence in the world in its own right (as endorsed by the German Foreign Minister on Radio 4).

Let us look at uncertainty, again in an easily understandable form. Uncertainty is as much part of life as day and night. The obvious relevant examples are life-changing decisions to get married, have children, or God forbid – divorce. They all require uncertain adaptability, but are all undertaken with the hope to a better future. For a while they can be a struggle, but the outcome is generally worth it. Ask any woman who has gone through labour, but yielded a healthy baby – the pain of labour is soon forgotten. A BREXIT includes a 2 year ‘grandfather clause’ where all of our existing relationships with the EU continue giving time to agree alternatives such as free trade agreements. The UK will see some immediate benefits in that the irksome elements of the Human Rights Act can be ignored, immigration can be brought under control, and our transport infrastructure can quickly progress without the interminable interference of Brussels. Therefore, our uncertainty has a short-term safety net which negates the scaremonger argument that the short-term will be turbulent; but does have some valuable upsides. The UK successfully recovered from 2 World wars without help, so a relatively simple exit from the EU should be a breeze. I would suggest that most people will not feel any immediate difference.

There is one element of the uncertainty that I have yet to see any comment. What is likely to happen to the EU without the UK as a member. There are a number of relevant uncertainties. Other net contributor countries could see the UK exit as a sign that the current EU model is really broke, and thus elect to do the same – especially as the EU will have to increase contributions of other member States to fill the vacuum left by the considerable contribution by the UK. The right-wing elements of France could rise and depose the French Government. France has much to lose by a UK exit. Where were these concerns in the deal negotiations – or wasn’t the threat of the UK leaving a serious consideration?

If Germany can find the means to support the Eurozone then it will more rapidly consolidate its hold over the Euro countries – and the people of the UK will be thankful that they departed. Of course we still have the Greek issue which will most certainly be a thorn in the side of Germany – will this lead to conflict within the Eurozone? We have seen that the poor response by Germany to the economic situation in the Eurozone when they refused quantitative easing some 4 years ago. The too little – too late plan by the ECB yesterday was greeted with derision by the markets.

The UK has a proud history as the banking centre of the world boasting excellence in financial capability (even when Labour are in Government), and the ability of the UK to rise from both the irresponsible spending of the last Labour Government and the financial crisis lays testimony to the intelligent and speedy response to such events. Should this be sacrificed to the incapable Eurozone mandarins who clearly do not have the experience, or the global market understanding?

In summary BREXIT will yield uncertainty whichever way it goes. Therefore, the issue is whether or not the people of the UK want control over such uncertainty, or do they want to surrender decisions to Brussels – unaccountable to the people of the UK, and not so interested in preserving the British way of life.

 

 

Advertisement

The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

img1The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

Before embarking in any detail blogs regarding the political and economic merits relating to BREXIT I would like to consider the environment leading to this referendum.

I think what is happening in the USA at this time allows us to sit back and observe what happens when the people feel that politics is stagnant, and thus irrelevant. If we use a simile of the US Congress and the House of Representatives as two conflicting factions of Europe, and President Obama as the people wanting to move forward in their lives but stifled by the conflict, then we can understand why Donald Trump is doing so well. My view is that the European Commission has lost sight of the problems in Europe being more interested in the degree of curvature of a banana than the real problems of economic inequality, global instability, and now the refugee crisis. Indeed, the refugee crisis demonstrates the difference between out-of-touch grandstanding vision, and reality.

In the late 1970’s, my mentor, Walter Wriston, and probably the most influential banker in the world at the time responded to my question regarding the political influences on deregulation of financial services and global capital flows (Big Bang in 1986) by stating that politicians come and go. Business drives economic prosperity, and the banks are the enduring stable force to ensure the required liquidity to facilitate global trade. I have never forgotten his response, essentially because it has shown over the years to be the case. I was also taught by him that there are two factors in global business decision making; inevitability, and consequence. To him (in 1979) deregulation of financial services was inevitable, with timing being the only consequence of interference from politicians.

I had the opportunity to attend a presentation to senior bankers by Jacques Delors when President of the European Commission. He was expounding ever closer European union in his attempt to convince senior bankers of the merits of forcing European federalism upon the UK. I suggested to him that businessmen, rather than politicians, would drive any unity in Europe, if deemed beneficial, while the politicians were still talking about it. Even his (French) economic adviser could not dispute the reality of my comment. It was interesting last week to see how few of the CEO’s of major corporates in the UK were prepared to openly endorse the views of David Cameron regarding BREXIT.

My opinion from many years of experience throughout the world is that the EU model is broke. The Cameron negotiations demonstrated that there is no appetite from vested interest parties to fix it other than tinker at the edges. In recent years the faults in the USA federal model have clearly demonstrated how damaging such models can be to the people when vested political interests can completely stifle the function of Government, and thus damage the lives of the people it is there to protect. Therefore, the only other route is to let the EU empire fall, and then remodel into something more worthy of consideration by the people. Does the UK want to be part of this (inevitable?) decline when it has other options? I think that a risk analysis would err on the side of caution, i.e. stand outside as a spectator and watch. And let us not forget that the Greek crisis revealed another truth – that the big decisions were made in Berlin – not Brussels.

Business will always find a way to trade, and thus survive. Thus BREXIT is only about the people of the UK, and their influence over decisions regarding their own future.

To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

img1To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

At last we have a definitive timeline to determine our future. Do we want to be ruled by a Germanic invasion of Europe for the third attempt in a hundred years, or do we rely on our historic past and save Europe from a model that was broke the day the Euro was introduced?

Having not yet analysed in full the proposed deal agreed by David Cameron last week, I can only comment on what he says he has achieved, having twice listened to his claims. The first alarm bell was the excessive use of Aristotle pathos during the Andrew Marr interview Sunday morning. Invariably a sign of a weak argument.

Let us quickly deal with benefits as this is only window dressing at just £30m or thereabouts per year. The UK net membership contribution is some five times this amount per week – some £2 per head of every man, woman and child in the UK. And what about the money sent to support families in places such as Africa, India and Pakistan every year. Add to this people from places such as Switzerland who come here to retire to take advantage of our NHS, our subsidised travel costs for pensioners, and our substantially lower cost of living – what have they contributed to our country? I would argue that child credits should be paid to every worker at the same level assuming they are paying UK taxes. The fact that their children are in another country should be seen as a saving as they receive their education and healthcare outside of our system. If these children lived in the UK then they would not only receive child credit but also incur costs for education and healthcare. This would amount to considerably more Government support than £21 per week. People who come here only to sponge on our benefits system, or even our NHS, should most certainly be refused entry.

His scaremongering essentially revolves around trade and defence. I found it bizarre that he puts our membership of the EU on the same context as our membership to the UN, NATO, G7, etc. This is comparing apples and bananas. We sit at the top table at the UN, NATO, G7, etc whereas we are a secondary player in the EU, tolerated primarily because of our historic influence in the world, and our substantial contribution in membership fees (without which the EU is likely to collapse). Last week the German Foreign Minister, speaking on Radio 4, clearly stated that the UK leaving will substantially reduce the influence of the EU in the world. He recognised that the UK is a primary driver in global influence of the EU, and we would most certainly retain our influence. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, and we benefit from an historic trans-global approach to the world. I find the EU extremely introspective. Ask someone in China where is Brussels, and then where is London – the easiest example to support my argument.

As for trade, we constantly hear from politicians wishing to stay within the EU that the EU is our largest trading partner, and indeed some claim that the EU is the largest trading bloc in the world. Rubbish and rubbish. We import some £300 billion per annum in goods and services from the EU – about two months worth of our overall trade. We sell considerably less to the EU. Our largest investment market is the USA, and we would be far better served in exports by nurturing our Commonwealth nations who constitute some 1.85 billion people as against some 340 million people in the EU. Politicians in the EU would impose trade barriers against the UK at their peril – of their own corporate leaders. Ask the USA, whose corporates are still trying to recover from the ill-considered trade barriers set by the USA in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Our finance sector is another scaremonger tactic. I found the statement, purportedly from HSBC, that should the UK leave the EU then they will have to establish investment banking activities in Paris as ludicrous as moving their headquarters back to Hong Kong. They might decide, as is normal practice in banking, to establish themselves within a market – but Paris? I also do not expect Deutschebank to reduce its presence in the City of London any time soon as the EU will need the capital raising capability of the City.

What Cameron did not achieve is any real movement in our sovereignty, as it is referred to, and the primary reason declared for Boris Johnson electing for the out of Europe campaign. Our legal system is considered as one of the best in the world, especially for trade and finance – and thus the dominance of the City of London. Its strength is that it grew with the market, and continues to rapidly evolve as is required to meet new challenges – and it is trusted. The continuing imposition of EU law can only impede our ability to retain this dominant position, and thus the dominance of the City – as has been attempted twice during my life as a banker. Germany has never been trans-global in its finance policy, and is invariably behind the curve on matters economic. For example, they dithered for some 3 years about quantitative easing meaning everyone within the Euro suffered.

The only applause to Cameron is for forcing the EU to agree a new deal in time for the referendum to occur whilst Angela Merkel is still in her final weeks of office. Politically well played – that is until Merkel’s response to the refugee crisis went sour. Had Merkel not lost her support within Germany she would have done whatever necessary to avoid the EU collapsing on her watch. There are now whispers that two other net contributor countries are considering following our lead out of the EU. Will the unelected grey suits in Brussels get the message? Today my vote is for Rule Britannia.

More to follow as the detail evolves.

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

The poignant D Day events of last Friday reminded me that this year is also the centenary since the start of the First World War, or the Great War as it is more commonly known. Although I have many good friends in Germany, and hold absolutely no prejudice against the German people of today, it occurred to me that, for 100 years, the elite of Germany have attempted to mould Europe in their own image, initially through two catastrophic world wars, and currently through self-serving political and economic influence within the European Union.

It cannot be disputed that the engine-room behind the introduction of the Euro was Germany, and in spite of the so-called stringent rules of entry into the Euro, Germany allowed such rules to be significantly relaxed to allow countries to participate where compliance with the entry rules would result in such countries otherwise unlikely to qualify for entry for years to come. It is no secret that Germany has significantly prospered under the Euro – at the expense of the other member nations. These nations now seek financial support, and the German Government have a hard time selling these bailouts to the already over-taxed German people, albeit a problem created by Germany in its self-serving quest for the domination of Europe.

Sometimes I reflect that Germany, having left Europe devastated in 1945, forgets that much of their subsequent prosperity was built on their substantial participation in the Marshall Plan (whereas the United Kingdom, as victor, did not qualify for any such support and has been required the swallow the cost of the wars, and rebuild using its own resources). As with the so-called super-model of Japanese prosperity in the 1980’s I do not subscribe to the German economic model of today, and certainly would strongly oppose this model being at the centre of the European Union. The current German economic model has a fundamental incestuous instability at its core, just like the proverbial pack of cards, and just as with Japan before its economy collapsed.

And this week the German elite are flexing their self-serving muscle again by instruction Angela Merkel to support a tame federalist like Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, a move that is counter to the fundamental reforms needed by all donor nations – except Germany.

I have just noticed a news headline  ‘German chancellor Angela Merkel has cautioned David Cameron not to use threats of a UK exit from the EU in his campaign to block a federalist candidate from taking the helm of the European Commission.’

Without these reforms my view is that the UK should not threaten to leave the EU, but make it very clear to Germany through the promised referendum that the people of the UK do not see their future dominated by the German vision of Europe. Maybe then the UK will have to pick up the pieces of an imploded Europe for the third time.

Work Related Stress – Do Corporates understand this problem, and do they care?

univest

Work Related Stress – Do Corporates understand this problem, and do they care?

Are major corporates playing lip service to EU OSHA (The European Agency for Safety & Health at Work) guidelines on work related stress and psychosocial risks? Having recently had the opportunity to review this campaign, and the proposed methodology of incorporation into a multinational corporate environment, where the primary implementation was the proposed OSHA poster campaign, and the implied consideration was not to blame management, I have my doubts that management understand the significant impact to bottom-line resulting from a stressed workforce.

What do we mean by stress and psychosocial risks? – as defined by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Psychosocial risks arise from poor work design, organisation and management, as well as a poor social context of work, and they may result in negative psychological, physical and social outcomes such as work-related stress, burnout or depression. Some examples of working conditions leading to psychosocial risks are:

  • excessive workloads;
  • conflicting demands and lack of role clarity;
  • lack of involvement in making decisions that affect the worker and lack of influence over the way the job is done;
  • poorly managed organisational change, job insecurity;
  • ineffective communication, lack of support from management or colleagues;
  • psychological and sexual harassment, third party violence.

When considering the job demands, it is important not to confuse psychosocial risks such as excessive workload with conditions where, although stimulating and sometimes challenging, there is a supportive work environment in which workers are well trained and motivated to perform to the best of their ability. A good psychosocial environment enhances good performance and personal development, as well as workers’ mental and physical well-being.

Workers experience stress when the demands of their job are greater than their capacity to cope with them. In addition to mental health problems, workers suffering from prolonged stress can go on to develop serious physical health problems such as cardiovascular disease or musculoskeletal problems.

For the organisation, the negative effects include poor overall business performance, increased absenteeism, presenteeism (workers turning up for work when sick and unable to function effectively) and increased accident and injury rates. Absences tend to be longer than those arising from other causes and work-related stress may contribute to increased rates of early retirement, particularly among white-collar workers. Estimates of the cost to businesses and society are significant and run into billions of euros at a national level.

How significant is the problem?
Stress is the second most frequently reported work-related health problem in Europe.
A European opinion poll conducted by EU-OSHA found that more than a half of all workers considered work-related stress to be common in their workplace. The most common causes of work-related stress were job reorganisation or job insecurity (reported by around 7 in 10 respondents), working long hours or excessive workload and bullying or harassment at work (around 6 in 10 respondents). The same poll showed that around 4 in 10 workers think that stress is not handled well in their workplace.

In the larger Enterprise Survey on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) around 8 in 10 European managers expressed concern about work-related stress in their workplaces; however, less than 30% admitted having implemented procedures to deal with psychosocial risks. The survey also found that almost half of employers consider psychosocial risks more difficult to manage than ‘traditional’ or more obvious occupational safety and health risks.

Having considered these definitions, and reflected on my own experience over the years creating, changing or rescuing investment banking operations I found myself compiling my top ten reasons for stress in the workplace. In no particular order they are:

  • Managers who rule by fear and/or dictate cause stress
  • Managers who do not know how to manage people cause stress
  • Managers who fear for their own position cause stress
  • Managers promoted under the Peter Principle cause stress
  • Managers who are emotional and/or insecure in the decision process cause stress
  • Managers who promote politics or other unhealthy competition amongst their staff cause stress
  • Managers who do not have an intimate knowledge of the business cause stress
  • Inexperienced people – wrong people for the job – cause stress
  • People suffering stress in their private life are prone to suffer stress in the workplace
  • Likewise people stressed in the workplace can take it home and cause stress in their private life which then reflects back into the workplace

My generic definition of a manager in this list is a strategic or tactical role, from main Board director down to line manager.

Therefore, from my own experience over many years, both as a Director of Operations and Management Consultant, my observation is that management are by far the most significant cause of stress in the workplace. This is logical if you think about it because these are the people who define the workplace.

The workplace that I speak of is probably one of the most stressful. Investment banking operations are extremely dynamic, constantly changing to meet new market demands, every transaction dealt during a trading day must be processed that day, imperfect settlement means that on a normal day some 30% of transactions fail (significant funding and hedging cost considerations), more on a volatile trading day, and little errors can result in a high cost. A typical trading day could see some USD 3 billion of turnover with an average transaction value of some USD 4 million or equivalent in other currencies. An error of just 0.25% on such volumes could result in a daily loss of some USD 7.5 million – the cost to run such operations for 1 year. So the stakes are high, and there is no room for errors.

With this background in mind it should not be too difficult to imagine the impact of any of the stress situations that I have identified above. During my career I have experienced the stress caused by poor management ranging from excessive demand on staff both in effort and time, fear, incompetence, poor leadership, breaches of human dignity, mental cruelty, demand for favour (including sexual), and physical brutality. I have experienced the human impact caused by workplace stress, whether it be mental breakdown in the workplace requiring long-term medical treatment, broken marriages, dropout, and even a premature death resulting from a mental beating from a tyrant director. In the environments in which I have worked it would be very unusual not to experience the extremes of human behaviour as it is a dynamic people business, and attracts some of the most aggressive people, many of whom have no understanding of compassion, or consideration of the impact of their decisions on others.

Examples of managers who rule by fear and/or dictate are plentiful. These people are particularly bad if they have an emotional character, and/or are very insecure. If these people are given too much power they can raise havoc in the workplace. Whether they like you or not carries more weight than merit, and total loyalty is a pre-requisite irrespective of how bad the leadership, or poor the business decisions. Very much also depends on their mood on the day resulting in erratic business decisions. Sacrificial lambs are a feature of such people as they comply with the final phases of poor management, i.e. punishment of the innocent, and decoration of the uninvolved. A manager makes a mistake; some innocent underling becomes the sacrificial lamb and loses their job.

For those not familiar with the phases of a management doomed for failure I will recount the origin of the eight original phases, which I see have now been condensed to seven or even six. In the mid-1970’s I was with Chase Manhattan Bank engaged in a project being managed by the consulting firm Arthur Anderson (no longer with us). After the first year the progress of this project was so dysfunctional that a group of us within the bank compiled the equivalent of a university Rag Mag for Christmas 1977. We identified the phases of our dysfunctional project as Confidence, Enthusiasm, Confusion, Disillusionment, Panic, Search for the Guilty, Punishment of the Innocent, and Decoration of the Uninvolved. For those who remember we also designed the tie with the motif of a picture of an anchor with a ‘W’ underneath it as presents for the associated Arthur Anderson staff, and still widely available in the City of London. This was not my first experience of poor management, and the associated profound stresses on the staff, but it was by far my most prolonged period of continual stress as a result of chronic management.

I was later asked to restructure an investment bank where the existing debt securities operations was a shambles. Operations staff were working an average 60 – 80 hours per week, there was no integration of the various functions involved, politics and finger-pointing was rife, poor transaction processing was the norm, moral was non-existent, and systems were wholly inadequate.

Having immediately realised that the executive management was located 18 floors above the operations totally removed from what was happening, and the various departmental heads were lacking the knowledge required for the business, my first task was to make it clear to the management all the way up to chairman of the bank that there would be no interference, that no-one, including the MD and Chairman, could request anything from any of my staff without coming through me first, and that my authority extended across the trading floors. I also refused to join them, preferring to have my office within the operations area (which was later mimicked by the MD). As the former head of settlements had suffered a nervous breakdown I recruited a known entity to fulfil this role, and replaced all department heads who were either not qualified, or not capable. Within 3 months anyone still on the floor at 6pm had to write down why they were still there, and put it on my desk. This is a psychological process more for them than for me as they have to read what they have written, and thus ask themselves whether or not it is credible. I needed them to go home to their families, and return fresh the next day to meet the ever present challenges of a new trading day.

After 25 weeks we had a fully integrated professional operation with new in-house systems. Politics on the floor was actively discouraged, and my door was always open to anyone on the floor for non-business related issues. At least twice each year we had informal gatherings for all staff and their families at which other halves were actively encouraged to raise any concerns they had. For every 5 people on the floor a representative was appointed, and these people were encouraged to meet together monthly to discuss any issues affecting the working environment (necessary feedback). Their output came directly to me, was taken seriously, and corrections made when necessary. We had a hard working, but happy group of people with the only workplace stress being that caused by the normal everyday imperfections in the business sectors in which we operated.

From experience I would suggest that the maxim for a stress-free workplace is to rule by consent, and lead by example.

Before restructuring this investment bank it was losing some £2 million per month through stress related errors caused directly by poor management. Therefore corporates need to understand that the overwhelming cause of stress in the workplace is poor management. Neither poster campaigns or denial will address this problem. The impact on the bottom line can be substantial if such stress is not taken seriously.

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

univest

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

I listened to the Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Monday evening with expectation of some new thinking on the way forward. The lecture was called ‘A New Multilateralism for the 21st Century’ and was presented by Christine Lagarde, incumbent MD of the IMF. My initial reaction was that it presented some interesting ideas, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on the relevance of these ideas. So, on Tuesday, I printed off the transcript of her speech from the IMF website. Having now studied this speech in some detail I find it endorses my view that the multilateral institutions of which she leads the IMF are essentially out of touch with the real problems that we face in the 21st century.

Back in the 1970’s, during the oil boom, individuals in the Middle East were accumulating vast amounts of US Dollars in cash because Western banks did not want it. Indeed I remember Swiss banks charging up to 3% p.a. to take these deposits. I actually walked into a room in a palace and saw a pile of US Dollars, and was told that this pile amounted to USD 1 billion. In an attempt to give some visual impression of this pile I am reliably informed that a standard 40ft sea container will hold USD 1 billion in fresh print USD 100 denomination bills. This money was not participating in any economic benefit whatsoever, and there was no possibility that the owner could reasonably consume these funds in their lifetime. Yet just one mile away there were ordinary working people struggling to find the money for their next meal. It occurred to me that if these funds were deposited with SAMA, and used productively producing even a nominal return, such return could be used productively to provide food for these people without any degradation to the original money. Yet the owner had no interest in such a proposition, and was content to accumulate yet more piles to look at.

Unfortunately this sorry tale has since increased in propensity, and as we saw a few weeks ago, Oxfam calculated that the 85 richest people have the same wealth as the bottom half of the World’s population. Christine Lagarde added that the richest 1% in the USA captured 95% of all income gains since 2009, yet the number of people in the USA needing food parcels to survive is now reaching pandemic proportions. She further states that in India the net worth of the billionaire community increased 12 fold in the past 15 years, enough to eliminate the poverty of that country twice over. So why has she not rationalised this into the real threat to the World Order in the 21st century?

We have seen so many billionaires created out of emerging economies such as the former Soviet Union, China, and India, sapping vast amounts of sovereign assets. The rapid nature of such wealth creation should arouse suspicion. However the point that I make is that somehow a few own wealth beyond any reasonable expectation of spending throughout their life. Many will say that they invest much of their wealth, but this only increases their existing wealth. Having met a number of these oligarchs their primary objective is to continue to increase their wealth, usually at the expense of others.

What about if each billionaire set aside USD 1 billion for investment and applied just the income to relieving poverty.

In 2013 an investment return of 15%+ was easily achievable. This would provide in excess of USD 150 million from each billion invested. The billionaire has not lost their capital, but much could be achieved with the income stream. Of course a few of these billionaires are already philanthropic and names like Bill Gates easily come to mind, and who clearly understands that he does not need such vast wealth, so uses his business judgement to make every dollar count in his selected beneficial projects.

Having brushed along with the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN for over 30 years I would suggest that they are political institutions populated by political appointees and academics who have no idea about the real world. I have witnessed a number of World Bank projects which did no more for the recipient country than to provide work for a donor country corporate, create an inappropriate monster that, within 5 years, was derelict leaving the recipient with sovereign debt but with no value to show for it. I have also seen appropriate solutions costing a fraction of the price of the expensive inappropriate concrete alternative discarded because the amount of the appropriate solution did not warrant World Bank intervention. It is interesting that Christine Lagarde acknowledges that it was the fast response of the G20 that stopped the world descending into meltdown 5 years ago rather than the institutions such as the World Bank and IMF founded to deal with such events. I think that this is a good template to use in stating that the current multilateral institutions are not good at delivering effectively solutions.

Although I am clearly in support of the outcome of Bretton Woods, we should also remember that not enough people there were visionary enough to accept all of the ideas of Keynes, and which were subsequently quickly adopted as catastrophe loomed, e.g. removal of the gold standard. Other than those wearing rose tinted spectacles no-one would suggest that the institutions that emerged remotely fulfil their ambitious mandates. I have already mentioned the lack of effectiveness of the World Bank and the IMF, and the UN is little more than a toothless talking shop today – Bosnia being a classic failure.

Christine Legrande suggests that the multilateral outcome of Bretton Woods produced ‘unprecedented economic and financial stability …. Disease eradication, conflict diminished, child mortality reduced, life expectancy increased, and hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty’.

Do we not count Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria …….etc as conflicts? All consumed the lives of many thousands of people including Western soldiers, left chaos and destruction in their wake, and they are still very much in our minds today. When was the last time that the USA was conclusively successful in any serious military conflict? Therefore Europe and the USA may have seen peace and prosperity since Bretton Woods but how many thousands of American and European soldiers and civilians have died in the name of preserving this peace?

To suggest that Europe has been conflict free is also short-sighted. In the past 6 years Europe has been involved in an economic war. Not too many people killed with bullets and bombs, but many have become disenfranchised, lost everything, displaced, and descended into poverty. Is this not symptomatic of a conventional war? When the vision of a European Union was first put to the people the rhetoric promised peace and prosperity for all citizens. I accept that the banking crisis made a bad situation worse, but how many European politicians in France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and the UK breathed a sigh of relief that they could hide their failure to create a credible EU behind the banking crisis?

Let us examine the two reference dates that she used, i.e. 1914 and 1944. She suggests that prior to 1914 the birth of the modern industrial society brought about massive dislocation between protectionist nations, and inequality between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Take away the country boundaries, essentially the impact of the digital age, and what is different today?

So where do I see the powder kegs of the 21st Century? Perhaps controversially I do not see the North-South Conflict as a major threat. An implosion within the Islamic community is more likely with primarily Sunni against Shi’a. If you think about it, most of the current conflicts involve the Islamic nations, and are driven by extreme religious division. The intervention by the West in some of these conflicts in the name of protecting the West has no logical outcome. These people have no regard for Western democratic values, or of secular tolerance.

At one end of the spectrum we have the blatant inequality of the distribution of wealth. We are experiencing 2 critical phenomena, both of which are counterproductive to a peaceful, all inclusive world. We have individuals and corporates accumulating vast wealth to the point where the resulting power exceeds that of some major nations. Albeit a few of these have taken a philanthropic stance we should note that such philanthropists are mostly from Western countries. Many of the new billionaires are from emerging or developing economies where democracy does not really mean very much, and a market society is the norm, i.e. everything has a price, even social and civic values. All we need is a charismatic megalomaniac, as depicted by the Carver character in the James Bond movie, ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, to cause chaos and suffering for many throughout the world. Unfortunately Western civilisation has degraded over the past couple of decades towards a market society thus adding a significant sting to the ever increasing differential between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. For example diminish the rights of the ‘have nots’ to education, justice, political influence, and healthcare because they have no money and you have a significant pool of would-be terrorists for our megalomaniac to exploit because they have nothing else, and nothing to lose.

Then we have corporate greed. So what can the people see? During the past 6 years the people have become very aware that their corporate executives have suppressed the salaries of the workers (the value drivers) to below inflation levels whilst increasing their own already attractive remuneration by some 40% average, and which has been allowed by investors because dividends have been maintained to these investors. So the people at the top have handsomely profited whilst real income to the workers has diminished. So much for sharing the pain. In addition these executives are immune to any accountability should they fail. Have any of the avaricious people who profited from the banking crisis been prosecuted, or had their ill-gotten gains repossessed? The banks themselves are being penalised by regulators who should have been more alert to the problems in the first place, and some of these funds do go to Government coffers. But these large fines diminish the capital of the banks, and thus inhibit their capability to finance the very enterprise we need to re-energise the employment market, i.e. they inadvertently stifle recovery, increasing disenfranchised young entrepreneurs.

At a micro scale we can look at the fate of RBS under Fred Goodwin. He was a megalomaniac trying to build the biggest bank in the world. Everyone I spoke to in the City of London at the time leading up to the acquisition of ABN Amro agreed that the terms of that deal, at twice the price that anyone else was prepared to consider, was insane. Yet no-one stepped in to stop him. How much pain, and destroyed lives has RBS caused to many thousands of people. But Fred Goodwin is made for life financially; so well in fact that sticks and stones may break his bones, but he will not lose a night’s sleep over the names that he is called.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the demographic issue. We have already seen a growing view amongst the young generation of workers that their taxes should not be funding the pensions and healthcare of the graying generation. The younger generation see that they have to pay taxes to support the pensions of an ever increasing graying population, and being told that they also have to contribute a significant proportion of their disposable income to their own pension provisions as State pensions will slowly but surely phase out by the time they retire. All of this at a time when real incomes are diminishing in real purchase power terms. Rightly the graying population state that they have paid their taxes, in the form of a special National Insurance tax specifically for the right to a State pension and healthcare, throughout their working lives and thus their State pension is rightfully theirs. The problem is that successive Governments have not ring-fenced these contributions over the years, preferring to spend it in the hope that future generations with continue to fund the requirement; a little like a Ponzi scheme. Add to this the migration of young labour where they have no historic interest in the local graying population, and expect to be able to send money home to support their own aging family, and we have potential serious discourse and unrest. Bring both of the above phenomena together and we have a powder keg just looking for a fuse.

So from where can our fuse emerge? Our fuse already exists in the form of the global internet, social networking, and twitter. Christine Lagarde is right in that the Arab Spring was fuelled by the galvanising of the people through media such as Twitter and social media. But likewise these facilities can also be used to fuel discontent and confusion. Great philosophers such as Aristotle, Kent and Hume have all commented on the importance of gossip to the masses, and our lesser quality media thrives on this obsession. So the touch paper is a disenfranchised charismatic individual or group exploiting the power of gossip through Twitter and social networks. We have seen the impact of disenfranchised ‘have nots’ in riots in many cities over recent years. It is when all of these groups can be galvanised together that we need to be concerned.

Are we at a collision point between socialism and capitalism, and is the global energy business driving this collision?

univest

Are we at a collision point between socialism and capitalism, and is the global energy business driving this collision?

Two events have occurred over the past few weeks which appear to encapsulate an observation that I have been considering for some time, i.e. whether or not capitalism has moved to the extremes of greed, and socialism has no answer to counterbalance this behaviour. Politicians and the media would have you believe that banks are the ultimate in capitalist greed. Whereas I have serious reservations about the activities in certain banks, I feel that the major energy companies from oil & gas production through to energy generation consider their power above that of politicians at the highest level, and that of the major trade unions. If my observation bears credible scrutiny then who are the winners, and who are the losers.

The two events that I would like to use in this debate, because they encapsulate the major drivers in this debate, albeit not the only events of concern, are the Grangemouth Refinery & Petrochemical plant debacle in Scotland, and the UK Parliamentary Committee meeting with the major UK energy companies this past week.

Perhaps a little background on the energy footprint in the UK will assist readers not familiar with the situation here.

According to Ofgen, the energy regulator, the UK has installed capacity for electricity of some 73GW of conventional generation and 9GW of renewable with ACS peak demand expectations around 60GW. Uncertainty around government policy (UK and EU) and future prices continues to limit investment in conventional generation and no new plant is expected before 2016. In the UK it is  estimate that around 1GW of new gas plant will come online before the end of the decade and the installed capacity of wind power will possibly more than double over the same period albeit that this must surely now be in question. In any event, given the variability of wind speeds, they estimate that only 17% of this capacity can be counted as firm (i.e. always available) for security of supply purposes by 2018/19.

More than 2GW of LCPD opted-in plant have also closed or converted to biomass since October 2012, resulting in less pollutant plant but with significantly reduced capacity. Around 0.5GW of nuclear capacity is reaching the end of its technical life and is expected to close by 2014/15, though extensions now have to be considered. Around 2GW of CCGT plant should be retired by 2018/19 for the same reasons, but will this happen?

As installed capacity falls in the next few years, all else being equal, prices can be expected to rise and it is possible that this will lead plant, especially coal fired, that is currently mothballed to come back online to keep prices affordable.

According to National Grid, the expected drop in peak demand is mostly due to increased energy efficiency in the domestic sector and increased Demand-Side Response (DSR) insulation of buildings, etc. I consider this to be a convenient explanation politically where the truth may be more damning.

For completeness the interconnection capacity between the UK and mainland Europe and Ireland is currently 3.8GW. Assumptions about the likely direction and size of interconnector flows therefore have a significant impact on the calculation of the risks to the UK security of supply.

Ofgen expect that, in a situation of tight margins (please), ahead of mitigation actions being implemented, prices would rise resulting in higher interconnector flows into GB. However, GB is not the only European country expecting de-rated margins to fall in the next six winters. France, Ireland, Germany and Belgium are also facing security of supply challenges, and have very similar patterns of demand and supply availability.

As for gas, DECC reports suggest that gas consumption reached a record high in 2004 of 1,125 TWh. Since then, consumption has seen an overall decline, and in 2012 total gas consumption was 845.6 TWh, around 25% below its 2004 peak. These longer term trends are driven by commodity prices, energy efficiency and, for domestic use in particular, temperature. However domestic demand in 2012 was high, up almost 16 per cent on 2011, reflecting the colder, protracted winter, but gas demand for electricity generation fell by almost a third to 214 TWh largely as a result of coal replacing gas use due to high gas prices.

UK gas production peaked in 2000 and has since been declining. With declining production the UK has become increasingly reliant on gas imports to meet demand. Since 2000 net imports have steadily increased year on year, with the exception of 2011 which saw a 3 per cent decrease on the previous year’s level. The recent fall in imports can be attributed to the reduced gas demand from electricity generators, being replaced by coal.

Imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through the two terminals at Milford Haven remain substantial, but their shares of total imports have dropped from 46% in 2011 to 27% in 2012. Demand for LNG on the global market remains strong but the UK has a diverse pipeline infrastructure (from Norway, the Netherland and Belgium) and the proportion delivered through each route will depend on global market conditions.

It is probably also worth noting that Europe, as a whole, has over capacity in crude oil refineries. The UK has 7 refineries. According to HIS Purvin & Getz Research Group the UK imports 47% of its diesel fuel, and 50% of its aviation fuel. However the UK has a 20% surplus of petrol which it exports.

Now let us look at the politics. In March 2007, the European Council agreed to a common strategy for energy security and tackling climate change. An element of this was establishing a target of 20% of the EU’s energy to come from renewable sources. In 2009 a new Renewable Energy Directive was implemented on this basis and resulted in agreement of country “shares” of this target. For the UK, by 2020, 15% of final energy consumption – calculated on a net calorific basis, and with a cap on fuel used for air transport – should be accounted for by energy from renewable sources. There was much grandstanding by the politicians at the time, especially directed towards the USA, indicating that Europe was a good citizen of the world, and would be a leader in the climate change revolution, setting targets that many reasonably minded people thought optimistic. However there followed much uncertainty surrounding the implementation of this and and other market reforms thus having as much impact on plant investment and retirement decisions as the expectations of the impact of evolving energy prices. This uncertainty means energy companies suffer much frustration of their long-term strategy through muddled energy policy, or indeed the lack of any definitive energy policy by various governments.

On the other hand the USA refused to sign up to Kyoto and, other than a little dancing at the edges, ignored the grandstanding of Europe and other countries and allowed the market to determine the future. The USA gets many things wrong, especially much of its foreign policy, but when it comes to protecting its own market it invariably gets it right. Developing new technologies and techniques such as fracking, the USA is now energy independent, energy prices are around 20% less than Europe, and they can export enough cheap fuel to disturb the markets in Europe.

In the UK the previous Labour government blindly signed up to all of the EU energy initiatives, could not fund these initiatives through already excessive taxation, so the current leader of the Labour Party, then Energy Secretary, came up with stealth taxes in the form of environmental and social levies to be collected by the energy companies from the domestic consumer, currently £117 per household, to fund these initiatives making a number of people in the renewable energy market very rich without delivering any tangible value today, or tomorrow. We now have a coalition government where the predominant Conservative Party want to repeal these stealth taxes and no longer subsidise renewable initiatives from public money but find themselves frustrated by the minority Liberal Democratic Party who see some value (to them) of continuing to wave the environmental flag. In addition the Labour Party, who created these woes for the consumer now wants to go to the dark ages of socialism and freeze energy prices. Maybe a good soundbite for the uninformed, but ridiculous in the world of global energy markets.

So let us review the Grangemouth debacle. As I said refining capacity in Europe exceed demand. Furthermore cheaper energy supplies are being imported from the USA. The management of Grangemouth, owned by INEOS, (the refinery can process some 210,000 barrels of oil per day) claimed that they are losing some USD 8 million per month fuelled partly by US imports where USA refineries pay some USD 15 per barrel less than UK refineries. The management, knowing that they need to invest some £300 million in the plant, decided that they could no longer afford to run the plant with the then operating costs. They put a package of pay and pension reforms to the 800 or so workers. In essence the UNITE union, one of the largest remaining trade unions in the UK (Margaret Thatcher saw off most of the trade union power in the 1980’s) applied its usual socialist dinosaur approach threatening strike action. The refinery management refused to accept revised terms from, or to spend 3 months negotiating with UNITE (giving the Government 3 months to find an alternative buyer) so INEOS, who had already safely closed the plant facing the threat of a strike then announced that they were going to close it. Both the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmon, quickly came into play to rescue this situation. We can only speculate on what happened behind closed doors but the UNITE union completely caved in and announced that they would recommend acceptance of the INEOS terms for its members, and it was clear that INEOS had been offered some government deal towards the required investment in the plant.

What we saw during the Grangemouth debacle is an example of how commercial reality surpasses political and trade union power. It was suggested that the loss of this facility would have been devastating for the Scottish economy, and they complain about banks being too big to fail.

Then we look at the Parliamentary Select Committee interrogation of the ‘big 6’ energy companies bosses, having raised energy tariffs by some 10% average to domestic consumers against wholesale price increases of just some 1.8%. The only reasonable summary of this session is too much grandstanding by the political panel, and total indifference by the energy bosses suggesting that the high price of energy was down to the stealth taxes mentioned above. I understand that the UK domestic consumers pay the highest energy costs in the European Union. One interesting analysis on a news broadcast was that British Gas had increased their profit from £45 per customer just 5 years ago to £95 per customer today. Apparently they need these profits to satisfy investment returns for their shareholders.

So who are the winners, and who are the losers.

Winners

  • The capitalist (foreign) owners of Grangemouth
  • The capitalist owners of the major energy companies
  • The capitalist owners of the renewable energy companies who will be long gone with their accumulated wealth before the reality of this folly is known
  • It will be interesting to know who claims the victory of Grangemouth, especially with the up-coming Scottish Independence vote: David Cameron claiming a victory for a United Kingdom, or Alex Salmon who wants Scottish Independence.
  • The environmental lobby thanks to the short-sighted view of the Liberal Democrat coalition leader

Losers

  • The domestic consumer who has to bear the cost of the bailout of Grangemouth because of a dinosaur socialist union leader.
  • The domestic consumer who has to pay the cost of the increased energy tariffs, which could be indirectly attributed to the lack of energy policy by governments
  • The domestic consumer who has to bear the socialist imposed stealth taxes for renewable energy policies that are far too optimistic, expensive, and will prove to be a waste of resources. It should be noted that the socialist principal of payment according to what you earn was ignored thus betraying their core socialist vote.
  • The domestic consumer who has to pay for price increases to corporate energy users as they will pass their increases on to the consumer in the price of their goods/services.
  • The domestic consumer who will have to bear the cost of frantic, last minute efforts to maintain supply because of the lack of any firm energy policy.
  • It is claimed that reduction in demand is mostly due to the energy efficiency in the domestic consumer market. To some extent new technology and insulation will have an impact, but I fear that cost means that many domestic consumers cannot afford to heat their homes, and thus go cold. Thus the losers, again, are low income and pensioner domestic consumers – a direct reflection of capitalist greed.

I think that it was Socrates who observed that intelligent people discussed ideas, moderately intelligent people discussed events, and the vast majority, the uninformed, share gossip. Our largest selling newspapers, and to a degree some news channels, and political hype thrive on sensationalised gossip including important issues of energy policy – apocalyptic climate change gossip spread by brainwashed environmental campaigners sell more copies and buy more uninformed votes than mundane realities. There is a flaw in democracy if the noisy uninformed minority can unreasonably influence the uninformed, the impact of which is a substantial negative impact to the silent majority. It is an unquestionable fact that people united can make change happen. Therefore the people need to be properly and honestly informed.

Ironically all of this dithering means that the future is a return to non-other than the fuel which started the industrial revolution –Coal – because it is plentiful, and it is cheap, – look at Germany’s preferred fuel.

I would be very interested to hear how the above events in the UK would have played out in other countries, not least Germany and France.

References:

Ofgen Electricity Capacity Assessment Report 2013

Various DECC reports

HIS Purvin & Getz Research Group

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Conclusions

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Conclusions

During a speech in Zurich on 19th September 1946 probably the greatest statesman of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, called for the creation of a United States of Europe modelled on the United States of America singling out the essential need for Franco-German co-operation. Churchill did not envisage the UK’s role as anything other than promoter (broker). In May 1950 Robert Schuman, the then French Foreign Minister, took up the idea of Churchill and put forward a plan.  We are now in 2013, some 67 years later, and what do we have that remotely resembles this vision?

On July 2nd 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, voted unanimously to declare the independence ‘of the thirteen United States of America’. Two days later, on July 4, Congress adopted the ‘Declaration of Independence’. The drafting of the Declaration was the responsibility of a Committee of Five, which included, among others, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and revised by the others, and then by Congress as a whole. It contended that ‘all men are created equal’ with ‘certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, and that ‘to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’.

In spite of a ravaging war to overturn the Declaration of Independence, (the Revolution War involving both the British and the French), a new Constitution was adopted in 1789. It remains the basis of the United States federal government, and later included a Bill of Rights. With George Washington as the nation’s first president and Alexander Hamilton his chief financial advisor, a strong national government was created. In the First Party System, two national political parties grew up to support, or oppose presidential policies. This was achieved in just 15 years during a ravaging war, and this was all managed without telephones, internet, air travel, motorised transport systems, etc.

Peace and prosperity cannot be achieved merely by the creation of a political and economic framework if the people themselves play no active part in shaping society or in living together in harmony, i.e. without the consent of the governed. In the current EU system little or nothing of significance has been determined by the people and thus they rightly feel disillusioned and disenfranchised. It is a certainty that if the UK were to vote today on staying in the EU the vote would be a resounding ‘NO’. I am informed by my connections in Germany that the vote of the German people is fractured, and could go either way. The Mediterranean states would almost all vote ‘NO’ in spite of reliance on Germany for finance. So when do the politicians stop playing their fiddles whilst Rome is burning, and start to address the real issues, not least that the current framework does not, and will not work. Then sit back and ask the people what they need from a united Europe for themselves, their children and grandchildren. If the people elect for a United States of Europe, something similar as outlined in this series of essays, or as envisaged by Churchill, then fix a date and do it. If the people know and agree the plan, and the target date, they will respond.

And when the politicians start to address this plan they need to look at it from an outward perspective, i.e. how the world will see it, in order to guide thinking to maximise the value drivers available. For example who in the world knows where Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt or even Berlin are, or that they even exist? The most known cities in Europe are Paris, Rome, London, Madrid and even Vienna. How many people do you know that, having visited Washington, the capital city of the USA, came back very disappointed with that city – even the White House is actually much smaller than pictures would have you believe. But Europe has stature with its historic cities so any plan must consider how these cities can be used as value-added drivers to the outside world. For example most people in the world know where London is, and that it is one of the most influential capital cities of the world. This is the strength of the UK, a maritime nation having built longstanding reputation and networks throughout the world, and thus a major value driver. Of course this assumes that we expand Churchill’s vision to include the UK – not a given in my thinking.

One important aspect of the plan for a united Europe was to prevent conflict in the form of another major war. With the ever growing disparity of European nation states, especially within the Eurozone crises, it is not inconceivable that conflict can occur in the form of civil insurrection, or even civil war, (history shows that civil insurrection starts with the disadvantaged versus the rich, and I do not sense that ‘love thy neighbour’ is much in evidence at this time). Was this caused by the banking crisis or, as more likely the case, the shambolic mismanagement of entry into the Euro. At the end of 1996 the European member states supposedly faced a tough test to determine which of them fulfilled the strict convergence criteria laid down for participation in the Euro. Very few passed the test as defined by the strict rules, so the rules were thrown out of the window to allow all who wanted involvement to adopt the Euro – and now we know the reality of allowing totally disparate economies to attempt to converge. What makes any European politician think that they can adopt a single currency without central control of fiscal policy and management of all states involved, and the safety nets in place such as described in my essays ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On’ – ‘A Social State’ and ‘Taxation’.

A major crisis would create a good framework to focus minds on an integrated approach. When Churchill gave his speech in Zurich the conditions in Europe would have been ideal to create the United States of Europe – an opportunity lost. Perhaps if the Eurozone implodes the situation will present the opportunity for a ‘clean sheet’ approach, and a rapid implementation.

Should the UK join a United States of Europe? There are two ways of looking at this. Integrating Europe without the UK would probably be a much easier task, not least because of its unique position in the world. It has protectorates, protected states, mandated territories, the British Commonwealth, etc. to consider involving some 1.6 billion people. What would happen to them in our United States of Europe? In this case the UK could act as independent broker (as envisaged by Churchill) to the creation of the United States of Europe ensuring that its Constitution and political systems are not unduly influenced by national interests of stronger nation states, and is outward looking to ensure that there are no difficulties integrating further countries in the future. The initial United States of America was just 13 states, but the Constitution was structured to be inviting for other states to participate – 50 states plus a federal district to date, and counting.

The alternative is that, as so many of the pillars of a United States of Europe exist, at least in part, within the UK system, finding solutions at the outset for the peripheral issue of integrating the UK will create a comprehensive framework that would accommodate any future entry of additional members, including Russia. I see the inclusion of Russia, at some point in the future, to be the completion of a United States of Europe that can compete with any other nation in the world. However, and unfortunately, the UK has too many of the value drivers needed in a United States of Europe – difficult for the other nation states of Europe to swallow. Looking at it from the rest of the world’s viewpoint London would be the logical capital. London is the largest financial centre in the world by far thus it would also be the home of the European Central Bank and the banking regulators. We could, but not necessarily, add the Supreme Court, and even the European Parliament, – and what about a monarchy head of state?

Another solution that would have a significantly better chance of success would be the integration of just a few fully committed nation states capable of convergence in order to create and refine the structure – and then invite other members as per the USA. However I cannot emphasise how important it would be to have an outward looking, and simple Constitution friendly to all. If it looks like, e.g. an expanded Germany and/or France then I see further membership as limited.

On balance, and in spite of the fact it would leave the UK disadvantaged in some respects, especially if Europe became a fully-fledged 27 member United States of Europe, instinct suggests that the UK should not participate, and certainly not in the EU as it stands today as it is a very expensive club with little or no return on investment. I do not see a massive migration of companies from the UK into Europe for a number of practical and economic reasons. Businesses always find a way to deal with other nations, in spite of politicians.

If we discount the nation states who benefit substantially from membership what proportion of the people (not the politicians) of the other member states would today think that the EU was anything other than a faceless, expensive enterprise causing unrest throughout Europe and continually imposing unnecessary and expensive interference in their lives? What about countries like Switzerland, who traditionally have been very much aligned with Germany, but sitting on the sidelines, and not now considering entry at any time in the near future.

The UK is ideally and uniquely positioned to act as nation broker, as was the case in the removal of the Berlin Wall and reunification of the Eastern states of Europe with the West. The UK would be a natural broker to act between the USA and Europe, and between Europe and Russia and the Black Sea and Caspian states.

Any European integration plan needs a people’s champion who will stay with the plan until achieved. As the natural process is for politicians to come and go, and they are certainly not neutral in their approach, this people’s champion is unlikely to be a politician. This champion could be an individual, a small group (the Group of Five structured the USA system), or even the UK as an independent broker. This champion must have an integration plan endorsed with the full consent of the people of the countries being integrated, not just their representative politicians – the people need to be directly engaged with the process.

The failure of politicians to agree a sound plan for Europe devoid of national and personal self-interests, and to engage with the people, is an affront to democracy for such an important project, and has led to the hotchpotch of a European disintegration that we see today. Now nation states want to revisit treaties, and the people of the UK might have the chance, at last, to make their voice heard. The German government states ‘no’ to revisiting treaties and, by the way, has put everything on hold for 2 months because of German elections – what about the people out there who are hungry and need medicine?

Politicians come and go, but the process of European integration cannot change every time there is a change of political guard. Europe needs a plan, ambitious and exciting, for full implementation within 2 years, fully endorsed by the people’s vote, and it needs a people’s champion to oversee the implementation. In the hour of need cometh the ‘man’, but where is he/she for this project?

I am unexpectedly fortunate to be able to conclude this series of essays in much the way they started; with an episode of Top Gear, the UK motoring programme. Last week Jeremy Clarkson, a presenter of Top Gear had the notion to determine how much automotive manufacture took place in the UK, and asked each manufacturer to contribute a selection of what they produce to a parade in The Mall in London one Sunday morning. The TV pictures of the quantity, quality, and variety of automotive products made in the UK was truly staggering and presented a message to the people of the UK more about the state of UK manufacturing in those picture than any politician could ever explain. To these pictures Clarkson added that:

  • A new car rolls off UK production lines every 20 seconds
  • Honda produces 5 of their car models in Swindon
  • The Toyota plant in Derbyshire exports cars to Japan
  • Nissan make more cars per year in just one plant than the total car production of Italy
  • Of the 11 F1 racing teams 8 are based in the UK
  • Cars such as Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Range Rover are the cars of choice by the rich throughout the world
  • Aston Martin has been voted the coolest brand in the world for 5 of the last 7 years

This was such a powerful 15 minutes of inspired broadcasting that the BBC repeated it again, and again as the message spread and the people connected with this better than any political message, and the resulting well-being of the people was noticeable. Contrast this with the political diatribe that comes out of the EU and it is not unreasonable to expect that the people of the UK will vote ‘NO’ to membership of the current EU disintegration.

Links

George Papandreou: Imagine a European Democracy without Borders http://www.ted.com/talks/george_papandreou_imagine_a_european_democracy_without_borders.html

Epilogue

Thank you for participating in this series of essays, and I hope that you found the debate interesting. It is very difficult within the reasonable scope of a blog to include or expand all of the arguments and debate, and thus what to include, and what to leave out. For example, with my understanding of market economies, I could have written more than the accumulated word count of all 11 essays. The key for me was to find some of the fundamental triggers of a reasonable United States of Europe that at least cause people to question what is happening in their name, and at the expense of the people. Having managed a number of very difficult, multi-faceted problems during my career, not least with disenfranchised people, and time being of the essence to find workable and accepted solutions, I have developed methods to include even the most pessimistic of people, and in timeframes considered unachievable.

The most important part of any solution was the need to explain to all of the people involved (globally in some cases) where we were, and where we needed to be. These people needed to be persuaded to engage in the process knowing some would not understand and/or believe, especially when, for two such problems, the technology we needed did not exist when we started, but we had a fixed and unmoveable delivery date. In such cases it was important that they knew that I would take full responsibility for the outcome – all I wanted from them was commitment and belief. I had one IT manager, very capable but a staunch Trekkie (as in Star Trek) who, when attending a strategy presentation, would write and speak the words ‘Star Date: (whatever the date)’ and then ‘About to go where no man has been before’ as per the start of an episode of Star Trek. This action enabled him to move beyond his anxiety, and he always delivered, albeit sometimes not quite knowing how. All I did was to instil confidence and commitment into people – what I term ‘removing constraint’ – shared my vision, and took responsibility for the result, but vesting the success in them. Such people never failed to deliver, and the sense of well-being of all at delivery was uplifting. People can be mobilised to achieve great things so long as they are properly engaged, motivated, and committed.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Market Economy

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Market Economy

Is the so-called European Union worthy of all the time, trouble and cost, all fully funded by the people of Europe? Firstly let me clarify the value-added components of a market economy worthy of the time trouble and cost of our United States of Europe. I refer to a secure, self-sufficient, free market economy consisting of a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials and energy, a relatively cheap labour force, innovative skills (excellent education), technology transfer skills, manufacturing, marketing, and with stable and effective financing (banking).

An economic definition of a Free Market Economy is a system in which decisions regarding resource allocation, production, and consumption, and price levels and competition, are made by the collective actions of individuals or organizations seeking their own advantage, i.e. profit. In all market economies, however, freedom of the markets is limited and governments intervene occasionally to encourage or dampen demand or to promote competition to thwart the emergence of monopolies. Also called free economy, or free market (ref: BusinessDictionary definition). But this can occur at the nation state level, or as a collective of nation states such as NAFTA.

The free market viewpoint defines ‘economic freedom’ or ‘economic liberty’ or ‘right to economic liberty’ as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is already embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative.

However in this world of globalisation recent history has shown that uncontrolled greed by the few can have devastating impacts on the many. The most obvious of these is the banking crisis where a few greedy investment bankers, interested only in their personal wealth, saw the opportunity to use their banks as casinos. When they were winning everyone was happy, ignorant of the fact that it could not last. The effects of this have caused widespread hardship, putting excessive stress on all of the welfare initiatives inherent in a democratic system.

We also see this excess in the boardrooms of major corporates who award themselves excessive bonuses, pensions, and salary increases whilst the workers, who actually create the wealth, have to suffer wage increases below inflation, i.e. they get poorer.

Clearly entrepreneurs and wealth creation are at the heart of any free market economy and must be encouraged and rewarded. Furthermore it is arrogant of politicians in general to think that they can outsmart the clever people whose sole intent is to make money regardless of consequence, and avoid or even evade taxes where possible. However united political systems throughout the global economy can take steps to close many of the gates to ensure that such excessive freedom is not available. For example investment banking is a global business so governments throughout the world need to legislate in tandem that banks cannot act as casinos, and must contain their activities to creating economic value and global liquidity. We need the creativity of investment banks, but we do not need their casino activities.

Likewise we now see moves by various governments to give stakeholders, the owners of the company, more powers to curb the excesses of the executives. However this is not the part of a market economy that I wish to address in this essay.

I want to refer to our template of the USA and examine the parameters that fuelled their economy, especially throughout the 20th century. If we refer back to the opening paragraph of this essay we will see a definition of a secure and self-sufficient, free market economy. If we examine the components of this definition there is one which can be considered as deficient within the EU as it is today, i.e. a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials and energy. My use of the word ‘sustainable’ in this context relates to volume rather than the Kyoto concept of ‘renewable’, especially for natural minerals. This component was fundamental to the industrial development of the USA and, indeed I am aware of expansionist plans of the USA to restock when they are close to exhausting their own supplies. For example we see how fast the USA has embraced fracking for both oil & gas exploration and development resulting in the material reduction in energy costs in the USA. This enables the USA to resume as a competitive manufacturer and supplier, thus reducing imports. This is a win-win-win for the US economy and its people. It is very refreshing to see that David Cameron has fully embraced this technology as a counter to the usual doomsayers who would have people starve rather than benefit from this technology.

So where does the EU find secure supplies of raw materials? The logical choice is to look east to our neighbours in the outposts of Eastern Europe. Russia has already demonstrated that it does not understand how to engage in secure supply, thus can only be considered a secondary source for the time being. It is possible to engage with countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan albeit with caution bearing in mind their continued alliance with Russia.

We cannot assume that the plundering the natural resources of third world countries as with Bougainville Island can continue. For those who do not know this story Bougainville is a small island state near to the Solomon Islands in the Pacific south of the Philippines. Before the war it was placed under administration of Australia under mandate of the League of Nations, but was invaded by the Japanese during the war. After the war Australia did not officially resume its role of administrator but, as soon as Rio Tinto found that Bougainville had enormous reserves of copper ore and gold in the 1990’s Australia went into business with Rio Tinto and passed statutes giving the mining rights to Australia who then gave Rio Tinto the exploration and development agreements without any regard to the people of Bougainville. The process of extraction polluted large tracts of the island until the people of Bougainville forcibly removed the Rio Tinto personnel (who were supported by Australian police and the Philippine army) from the island, with many dead. There is much on the internet about this tragedy for those interested. Rio Tinto and Australia are still looking at reparations of some USD 8 billion to the people of Bougainville.

Parts of Africa are also rich sources of minerals, but the Chinese have secured much of these for their own industrial requirements, as is the case with Brazil.

Thus the EU will primarily have to compete in the open market – not the strongest base on which to build a United States of Europe, especially with competing countries as large as China and India, both willing to secure as many resources as they can find to fuel their own needs.

It is worth returning to the situation in Brazil, one of the so-called BRICS, as an example of not understanding the economics of owning raw materials. Currently in Brazil they mine their raw materials and export them to countries such as China at Rial:USD exchange rates that do not optimise value to Brazil. They then have to import finished goods made with these raw materials thus consuming more than their receipts from the raw materials to satisfy their own internal market demand for goods. This is a sad reflection of a country with outdated fiscal and social policies, woeful internal transport systems, and that cannot attract large-scale manufacturing industry because cost of production could not be competitive at current exchange rates. Contrast this with the USA who would use their capitalist economy to convert these vast reserves of raw materials into goods for both internal consumption and export thus reducing the need to import, and receiving export income. Think of the employment difference between Brazil and the USA – Brazil only engages nominal labour in mining the materials, whereas the USA would also engage the manufacturing design and process people, distribution, etc. The market economy of the United States of Europe needs to resemble the USA model to satisfy the definition that I have proposed. Indeed if Brazil were a direct neighbour of the EU they would be a ‘must’ to be a member as the EU could provide all of the market support to Brazil that it lacks in exchange for its raw materials – this would be a fantastic outcome for our United States of Europe. It does not matter that Brazil is a developing economy as the capabilities within the other member states could rapidly transform Brazil into a vibrant economy having all of the infrastructure necessary for a 21st century country.

Therefore I would suggest that we consider the current 28 member states as phase I of European integration, or even phase I and phase II if we adopt a more pragmatic plan of integration. I see phase II (or III) as the inclusion of Ukraine: (coal, iron ore (5% of world reserves), manganese, nickel and uranium, mercury ore (2nd largest reserves in the world) and sulphur (largest reserves in the world)), Azerbaijan: (rich variety of minerals, oil & gas), and Turkey: (many types of minerals, and close links to the Kurds in northern Iraq and their large oil & gas reserves). Before anyone asks, Turkey would have to commit to continue as a fully secular democracy as part of membership, but having worked with Turkey since the late 1970’s I do not see this as a problem, and as is evidenced with the current unrest in Turkey. Just as we have seen in Egypt the majority of people in Turkey value a free secular society, and will fight to keep it.

Ultimately I see the integration of Russia with its vast mineral wealth (our local equivalent of Brazil) thus placing the United States of Europe as a significant self-sufficient market able to compete with any other economy in the world. As improbable as this seems today, if Europe can achieve a United States of Europe similar to what is proposed in these essays, then a more pragmatic regime in the Kremlin will see the advantages of being within, rather than the vast costs to create their own economic system – especially if Europe can substantially reduce its need of oil & gas supplies from Russia.

The value of a market economy, as per my definition in the opening paragraph, to our United States of Europe is the lack of dependency (and thus exposure) to any other country for the supply of materials strategic to the economy of the nation. This is also applicable to agriculture, but in this regard I do not anticipate any problems with capacity to feed the people of the United States of Europe today or in the foreseeable future. For example we have not yet begun to properly and fully exploit the vast black gold agricultural regions around the river Danube throughout the former Yugoslavia and Romania, and which could potentially produce a significant amount of the produce required. They call the soil in that region ‘black gold’ for a reason, and most of this region is organic soil.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the Like It ‘thumbs up’ below, and/or become a follower so that you receive notice of further essays in this series.

You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Taxation

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Taxation

Taxation is the instrument of State that provides the income to service the functions of government. It can also be used to incentivise investment, to change behaviour, and to redistribute wealth.

Within the EU today each nation state has its own tax regime plus a tax to fund the various organs of government of the EU – notionally VAT.

The disparity of tax regimes and the effectiveness of collection throughout the EU is almost a north/south divide. The Mediterranean nation states have proven poor at tax collection much through corruption and black economies, and thus their current dilemma. The more Northern nation states have reasonably good collection and little or no corruption.

Years of attractive stimulus for businesses by providing complex tax incentives are now coming home to roost. The desperate need by governments for new sources of tax revenues has unleashed wrath on major corporations who are certainly exploiting the available tax incentives albeit, by and large, they are not contravening statute. However politicians are suggesting that these businesses have a moral duty to pay more tax, thus whipping up the flames of anger among the electorate, and working with other governments to do the same in order to close the door on these businesses relocating – a coup. It will be interesting to see how these corporates respond to this approach as they have a right to think it a breach of faith. Not that I support their position as I have seen smaller, developing states essentially raped by corporates forcing their terms onto inexperienced struggling governments just trying to bring some wealth creation to their country. Furthermore I have already mentioned in a previous essay that corporates have a moral duty to the welfare of their staff and immediate environment – something that has substantially diminished as a result of globalisation, but needs to be reintroduced.

I think it justified within a discussion about the EU to include the converse of taxation in the form of nation state subsidies from the EU government. The most contentious of these is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) a mechanism created to normalise competition in farming output whilst markets adjusted, but which has not yet gone away. Indeed the CAP still accounts for some 50% of the EU budget. The French appear to use the substantive revenues they receive under CAP to put off the fateful day of much needed social reform in France. It is easier for the French government to plead with the EU Commission to keep this subsidy than it is to break the stranglehold grip over social policy of the trade unions in France. This has been a thorn in the side of EU integration for too many years. A unified tax system throughout Europe, applied equally to all, could address this problem without any reasonable objections from any trade union movement.

If we refer back to our corporate structure described in ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again of Plod On – A New Government’ it is easy to see that tax revenues yield the income streams that provides for the State to function. A nation state, just as with a corporate, has a Balance Sheet showing all State assets and Liabilities, an income statement showing all tax receipts and the costs government and the social state, and a cash flow statement showing tax receipts versus expenditure on a timeline indicating when the government coffers will be short of funds to meet its commitments (and thus the need to visit with the Central Bank to cover any shortfall), and when it will be in surplus. The theory is that good government will result in balanced books, something Margaret Thatcher was forever reminding her colleagues in the House of Parliament when they wanted yet more money for some social crusade, and something Tony Blair just ignored in favour of expensive social engineering intended to buy popularity and the votes of the people. Thus the infamous note left by Labour MP, Liam Bryne, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of the general election in 2010 which stated ‘Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid that there is no money. Kind Regards and Good Luck’ – a very different situation to the one Labour inherited when they came to power.

What about the rest of Europe? We know that Germany has probably the most austere tax regime, albeit that the Scandinavian countries make take exception to this statement. The most lax at tax collection is probably Greece where, by all accounts, tax officials are readily corrupted, and the ruling elite are part of the problem. As far back as ancient Greece Aristotle knew that no freedom is limitless. The negative aspect of too much freedom of economy was an issue already recognised by the ancient Greeks, and proves to be one of major reasons for the current huge crisis in Greece today. As in ancient Greece it is still typical that very rich people think that is very natural not to pay taxes, and not even to have a conscience about it.

Clearly entrepreneurs and wealth creation are at the heart of any free market economy and must be encouraged and rewarded. Furthermore it is arrogant of politicians in general to think that they can outsmart the clever greedy people. However a united political system in the form of a simple and unified tax structure applied throughout our United States of Europe could close many of the gates to ensure that excessive freedom is not available.

In our United States of Europe the whole tax system would have to be overhauled in the name of equality for all. Thus what might a centralised tax system look like so that it is seen to be balanced between rich and poor states?

Within a framework of subsidiarity the central government would need funds, and each member state would also need centrally allocated funds to operate State policies. Furthermore each member state could raise taxes specific to the requirements of each state, with the consent of the people of the member state. There are a multitude of cultures within Europe having different requirements in the name of well-being and quality of life. These should not be stifled by an overbearing central government, and thus allow the state assemblies to respond to such requirements through a democratic process of state taxation.

Thus we would need State taxation in the form of corporation tax, income tax, investment income tax, duties, levies, etc. The rate of taxation on these sources would need to be the same for everyone, and collection would be controlled by a central government revenue agency. For example all employed people would have income tax and national insurance (for healthcare and pensions) deducted monthly at source thus providing central government with a constant stream of income, easy to collect, and overcoming the existing difficulties presented to citizens in some nation states who are paid their salary gross of deductions and then have to find funds to pay their taxes at the end of the tax year. Income tax thresholds, i.e. the minimum salary to attract any income tax, should be set at a liveable level (thus optimising the tax collection body to a cost effective level), and national insurance contribution up to this level should only include a pension provision – healthcare should be free for the poorest.

VAT could be transformed into a tax to allow for redistribution of wealth to poorer sectors. For example VAT, being a capitalist tax and applied to purchase power (consumption), should have its bounds set such that the essentials of life should not attract VAT. This means that most food, anything to do with rearing children, books, newspapers, etc would be exempt from VAT. Indeed VAT could be seen as a luxury tax and thus only paid by people who had enough disposable funds to afford the items. This means that poorer people would pay little VAT as a percentage of their disposable income, and richer people would pay substantially more. These funds could be used to improve the environment of the poorer people, and help poorer member states to raise the standards of living for its citizen by providing necessary infrastructure to encourage wealth creation.

The essential requirement of the system of taxation within our United States of Europe is that it is seen as unified and fair to all people thus preventing unnecessary competition between member states, and to prevent artificial migration of people. For example, the extreme application of subsidiarity in Switzerland has provided a bizarre situation where people will move just a few streets in the same city for the sole purpose of achieving lower taxation in a different municipal system, but still work in, and enjoy the benefits of the higher tax municipality within that same city. This level of subsidiarity could be compared with tribalism and thus is very undesirable, and should be avoided.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the Like It ‘thumbs up’ below, and/or become a follower so that you receive notice of further essays in this series.

You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.