This essay from George Monbiot just has to be read as widely as possible.
Dear followers of this blog know that from time to time I dip into politics. I do so because something I read strikes me with such force that I want others to read the article or essay. Not infrequently, my ‘dip’ is in the form of republishing an essay from George Monbiot who, long ago, gave me blanket permission to republish his essays. That is the case today.
I was inspired to write my book, subsequently self-published last December, because I truly believe that the values that we see in our longest animal companions are values that we, as in our societies, from top to bottom, have to embrace if we are to stand any chance of surviving as a species.
Reflect on the fact that dogs do not lie, they do not set out to deceive or influence others for their own personal gain and they are utterly creatures of integrity.
OK, I can hear some of you thinking that dogs are dogs and humans are humans and it’s just plain daft to link the two in this fashion. My only answer to that is to read the book or, at the very least, download and read the first twenty-five pages (for free). Better still purchase the book and have 50% of my net income donated to the Rogue Valley Humane Society.
On the 28th July, George Monbiot published an essay entitled So Much For Sovereignty. I read the essay and, frankly, was apalled at what George was describing: the background of the UK’s new international trade secretary, Liam Fox, recently appointed by Theresa May.
Read it for yourself and see if you react the same way that I did!
ooOOoo
So Much For Sovereignty
28th July 2016
To this government, “taking back control” means handing Britain to a different set of foreign powers
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 27th July 2016
What does it mean to love your country? What does it mean to defend its sovereignty? For some of the leaders of the Brexit campaign, it means reducing the United Kingdom to a franchise of corporate capital, governed from head offices overseas. They will take us out of Europe to deliver us into the arms of other powers.
No one embodies this contradiction as much of the man now charged with determining the scope of our sovereignty: the new international trade secretary, Liam Fox. He explained his enthusiasm for leaving Europe thus: “We’ll be able to make our own laws unhindered by anyone else, and our democratic parliament will not be overruled by a European Court.” But of all the people Theresa May could have appointed to this post, he seems to me the most likely to ensure that our parliament and laws are overruled by foreign bodies.
Dr Fox looks to me like a corporate sleeper cell implanted in government. In 2011, he resigned his post as defence secretary in disgrace, after his extracurricular interests were exposed. He had set up an organisation called Atlantic Bridge, financed in large part by a hedge fund owner. Atlantic Bridge formed a partnership with a corporate lobbying group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is funded by tobacco, pharmaceutical and oil companies. Before it was struck off by the Charity Commission, it began assembling a transatlantic conclave of people who wished to see public services privatised and corporations released from regulation.
He allowed a lobbyist to attend his official meetings, without government clearance. He made misleading statements about these meetings, which were later disproved. It seems extraordinary to me that a man with such a past could have been brought back into government, let alone given such a crucial and sensitive role. Most newspapers have brushed his inconvenient history under the political carpet. He is, after all, their man.
This is the man who has been put in charge of making new trade agreements. What he wants to do with them is pretty clear. “We need to see a reinvigoration of our transatlantic relationship,” he argues. “We have a low regulation and low taxation environment which is only likely to improve outside the EU.” Improve, in this context, means becoming yet more hostile to human welfare, social mobility and the defence of the living world.
They threaten to reduce to the lowest common denominator the laws protecting us from predatory finance, the exploitation of workers, food adulteration, climate change and environmental destruction. They threaten to force the privatisation of public services. They would allow corporations to sue governments for compensation in offshore tribunals that – unlike the European Court Dr Fox professes to hate – are unaccountable, opaque and wildly imbalanced. The EU has no mandate to strike such agreements: a consultation on the offshore tribunals TTIP proposes attracted 150,000 responses, 97% of which were negative.
Leaving Europe should enable us to leave behind biased, destructive treaties of this kind; we will, after all, have to renegotiate most of our trade agreements. But by putting the Fox in charge of the chicken coop, Theresa May seems determined to replace them with something even worse.
The corporate army is already at the gates. The Republican senator Tom Cotton proposes that Britain should join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Using the kind of international tribunals that TTIP threatens to impose, NAFTA has undermined labour rights and environmental protection. It has blocked attempts to produce more progressive laws and greatly restricted legislative sovereignty. Whether we formally join NAFTA, or connect to that trading area through TTIP or another such agreement, the results will gravely threaten our sovereignty – unless negotiations are run on an entirely different basis.
In response to the Philip Green scandal, Theresa May says she wants to “tackle corporate irresponsibility” and “reform capitalism so that it works for everyone not just the privileged few.” We have no idea what she means, but here’s where it should begin. Before her government starts negotiating any new trade treaties, it should open a public consultation about their purpose and scope. The UK’s trading relationships should be debated in parliament and the people of this nation should be allowed to determine how much control over national life our representatives should retain, and how much should be ceded to international agreements and international bodies.
Does this mean a referendum? If we can be trusted to decide whether or not to share our sovereignty with Europe, should we not also be trusted to decide whether or not to share it with transnational capital?
But the Conservative vision of sovereignty is highly selective. People like Dr Fox appear to hate much of what others love about this country: the NHS, our public broadcasters, our social safety net, the protection of the countryside, the notion that power resides in the people, rather than in corporations and their shadowy lobbyists. There are traitors in our midst, who would rip down our most treasured institutions on behalf of the transnational elite and its offshore holdings. This, it seems, is what they mean by taking back control.
Yes I agree.. we need leaders who embrace Truth.. so many embrace their own pockets and agendas first however..
I had not known the background of Mr Fox.. The more I read, hear and learn about the political scene the more I want to withdraw from it..
Thank you for this enlightening share Paul
Sue, I feel the same way. Yet the more I want to ‘bury my head’ in loving Jean and all our animals, the more persistent is the voice in my head telling me to stay informed about the politics of this world. Lovely feedback, Sue.
Yes my hubby keeps me well informed Paul.. 🙂 Even though I try to escape LOL ..
And the world is turning faster in the scheme of things as changes are everywhere right now..
Sue, just wanted to affirm where you’re at with the political melee that’s the norm, these days. Where it’s important, I think, to be generally informed, I’m really endeavoring not to make myself nuts over it – rather, to simply hold the space and energy for ‘the best’ to emerge in my being. To do that, I cannot be swayed by the pomp and circumstance. I wonder if you are similar this way. And certainly, to affirm Paul’s place in it, there needs to be intelligent discussion by those feeling called to share and speak. I applaud it, Paul. It’s just not my place right now, though it certainly was years ago. Cheers, both! ❤
Yes Bela I would at one time hold many a passionate debate on many a topic such as this..
While being like you fully aware of the world and its workings, I choose these days to focus my energy not in debate, but in peace .. We had a similar discussion before I feel. We both Care too much, which is why we choose as we do. Accepting that what is.. IS.. But also holding within us a knowing that all is for a purpose, All has reason, and all will unfold as it is meant to.. Without my own energies getting wound up tight about it.. ( one time I would, like a clock spring ) But we know what happens when we keep on winding.. 😉 so I release it to the Universe.. It has a Plan better than any of us can forsee.. 🙂 ❤ Thank you Bela.. xx
I cannot ingest the article just now, but wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy on dogs. If humans could only learn from them, the world would doubtless be a better place. ❤
Yes I agree.. we need leaders who embrace Truth.. so many embrace their own pockets and agendas first however..
I had not known the background of Mr Fox.. The more I read, hear and learn about the political scene the more I want to withdraw from it..
Thank you for this enlightening share Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sue, I feel the same way. Yet the more I want to ‘bury my head’ in loving Jean and all our animals, the more persistent is the voice in my head telling me to stay informed about the politics of this world. Lovely feedback, Sue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes my hubby keeps me well informed Paul.. 🙂 Even though I try to escape LOL ..
And the world is turning faster in the scheme of things as changes are everywhere right now..
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sue, just wanted to affirm where you’re at with the political melee that’s the norm, these days. Where it’s important, I think, to be generally informed, I’m really endeavoring not to make myself nuts over it – rather, to simply hold the space and energy for ‘the best’ to emerge in my being. To do that, I cannot be swayed by the pomp and circumstance. I wonder if you are similar this way. And certainly, to affirm Paul’s place in it, there needs to be intelligent discussion by those feeling called to share and speak. I applaud it, Paul. It’s just not my place right now, though it certainly was years ago. Cheers, both! ❤
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Bela I would at one time hold many a passionate debate on many a topic such as this..
While being like you fully aware of the world and its workings, I choose these days to focus my energy not in debate, but in peace .. We had a similar discussion before I feel. We both Care too much, which is why we choose as we do. Accepting that what is.. IS.. But also holding within us a knowing that all is for a purpose, All has reason, and all will unfold as it is meant to.. Without my own energies getting wound up tight about it.. ( one time I would, like a clock spring ) But we know what happens when we keep on winding.. 😉 so I release it to the Universe.. It has a Plan better than any of us can forsee.. 🙂 ❤ Thank you Bela.. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot ingest the article just now, but wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy on dogs. If humans could only learn from them, the world would doubtless be a better place. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bela, wonderful replies from you. If I was a younger man I might consider starting a political movement based on the teachings of dogs! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truly, Paul. ❤
LikeLike