British Woman now occupies most powerful post in the EU

It is ironic that the British, who are so very anti-EU, are going to supply, with effect from December 1 this year, the person who will occupy the most powerful post in the EU: Baroness Catherine Ashton is to be the "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" - a title that is impressively long as it is important.

The Baroness has been the EU's Commissioner for Trade, a position in which she has not made many waves, but in which she has no doubt built up considerable and appropriately high-level experience of the workings of the EU.

I was chatting a few days ago in Oxford with my friend Professor Miguel Mesquita da Cunha, who used to be an Adviser to an earlier EU President, and whose opinion it is that ever since the UK joined the EU, it has supplied people for key posts in the EU. Most British people do not realise what a sea-change has come about in the EU over the years that they have been part of the EU: when they joined, the EU was dominated by the French and the first language of the Commission was, for all practical purposes, French. With the accession of an increasing number of countries, the French influence has been marginalised. And, as most of the "new" countries prefer English, that has become clearly the dominant language. Not only that, English-language thought-forms and Anglo-American values are clearly winning out over traditional Continental European values. At least, that has been the trend up to now. So much for Miguel's view.

It remains to be seen whether the current crisis, and the operation of the new Lisbon Treaty from December the first, will change the trend and, if so, in what direction. Sphere: Related Content

The UK is trying really hard to address the challenge of unemployment in the country

There are now two separate agencies checking passports on arrival at Heathrow - at least there were this morning when I landed from the US.

One agency was checking at the end of the arrival pier, the other at the normal Passport Control kiosk. Sphere: Related Content

Inter-religious Dialogue

A friend , John, who is a Christian, copies me on a letter he writes to a Muslim friend of his:

"I was prompted by Karen Armstrong’s article in the Guardian today, where she suggested that truly Socratic dialogue should be conducted by expressing yourself clearly as a gift to your debating partners.

"The question arises as to what followers of Jesus can offer to members of other faiths that seems to be unique to Jesus.

"If we just list common points between the faiths the result can look can look rather like a list of middle class values!

"The combination of the following things seems to me to be unique to Jesus. They were revolutionary in Jesus’ time and continue to be so. The problem is that the conflict between virtue and power usually results in power getting the upper hand.

"Jesus’ responses to his own persecution and his entreaty to his followers are quite sublime.

"I quote from the New International Version of the Bible.

1. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Mathew 5 v 43

2. Jesus on the cross said -

“ Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” Luke 23 v 34

3. The “Sermon on the Mount” Mathew 5 vv 3-11

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are all the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.
Blessed are you when people insult you persecute you and falsely say all kinds of things against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is you reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.

5. The Lord’s prayer. Mathew 6 vv 5 – 14

“ Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver is from the evil one.
For if you forgive men when they have sinned against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins your Father will to forgive your sins.”

6. The parables of Jesus in the gospels ------in which he says “ The kingdom of heaven is like this…………….”

"Would it be possible and valuable for you to set out the unique gifts other faiths can offer to each other?

"I once attended a dinner in London hosted by Sigi Sternberg where Muslim Jews and followers of Jesus shared their faith in after dinner discussion. It was quite inspiring".

As someone who finds formal "inter-faith dialogue" totally boring, but always values more personal sharing, I thought the point that John made at the end rather more my cup of tea.

Though I should say that what John regards as "middle class values" are in fact, historically speaking, Biblical values that were the cultural creation of the Protestant Reformation, even though that has not yet quite succeeded in overcoming bourgeois values.

However, I responded to John somewhat as follows:

Dear John
many thanks for copying me on this
I seem somehow to be under the impression that what is unique about Jesus the Living Lord is His promise to come and live in the hearts of those who choose to follow Him, so as to renew in them day by day a desire to grow more closely into God's moral/ spiritual/ emotional likeness...
his teachings are at best beautiful thoughts, though arguably more beautifully expressed than by others, if we do not have the experience of His living in us
warmly
Prabhu Sphere: Related Content

Dialogue on Religion and Business

I have just participated in a discussion on the subject, as part of the agenda at one of the more important business fora in the world. At the session, moderated by the Chairman of Lazard International, Ken Costa, there were representatives of Protestant, Roman, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jain traditions (not all apeaking only on their own behalf).

While the others said nice things, the most useful contributions for the business audience came from the Buddhist, Robert Thurman, who pointed out that leaders "are always in danger of being misled about the real situation in their firms by their own subordinates" and by the Protestant, Rick Warren, who argued persuasively that we need to think not only of the "two-legged stool" of Public-Private Partnerships but rather of the "three-legged stool" of Public, Private and Faith-based partnerships: the power of faith-based institutions to contribute to the elimination or amelioration of social evils is hugely underestimated or ignored.

He also spoke stirringly of the Five Global Goliaths in today's world: Conflict (spiritual, perpersonal, inter-generational...), Corruption or unethical leadership, Extreme Poverty, Pandemics and Illiteracy.

Altogether, the speakers offered a paean of praise for religion that seemed to me perhaps justified in view of the brief time dedicated to the subject. However, it did seem to me open to the charge of being unduly uncritical of religion.

Religion has, and continues to be, itself a source of corruption in most parts of the world, it continues to justify and participate in economic and social exploitation, and it is too closely allied to and often itself becomes a base for power. At least that is my viewpoint as a disciple of someone who was so anti-religious that the religious-political establishment decided that the best way to deal with his criticisms was to eliminate him. The establishment, having found this to be an ineffective strategy, then proceeded to try and co-opt his followers into the power structures - a challenge with which his followers still struggle.

Anyway, from my point of view, the discussion would have been much more useful if there had been, on the part of the religious leaders on the podium, a little less self-congratulation, and a little more engagement with the ethical mess in which business is today. The topics slated for discussion were: "Has global business lost its moral context? If so, has this loss contributed to the global downturn? Can belief systems help us generate the co-operation that is needed to renew growth?" - excellent topics that were wholly ignored by the speakers, who went on far beyond their allotted time (as is, I think cynically, surely an occupational hazard for them), leaving then little time even for the participants to pick up the slack. Sphere: Related Content

On the day the oil price touches $80, ironically, a renewed push to dilute attempts to limit speculation

Isn't it ironic that on the day that newspapers are abuzz with the news that oil is already back to $80, we have the FT reporting that "US plans for an aggressive crackdown on energy speculation are in danger of unravelling, with leaders at the US commodity regulator raising doubts about proposed reforms"

Why is this? Principally because of - you've guessed it! - concerns that if the US introduces tough rules, then trading will simply move to other countries.

Democart-nominated CFTC commissioner Michael Dunn, who earlier said the CFTC should consider new speculative limits, is reported to now say: “When a contract trades globally, it may be detrimental to US markets for the CFTC to act unilaterally on position limits while other countries with benchmark contracts chart different courses”.

So, as I have argued consistently for several years, global markets have only two choices: either the current more or less unregualted market, or global rules applied consistently across all countries. Continuing with unregulated markets will bring back oil prices at $120 (and perhaps even $250 as some authorities predicted only a short while before the crisis). Putting in place global rules will limit boom-bust speculation and ensure that prices reflect, as they should, genuine demand. Sphere: Related Content

The first political party to start moving in the right direction

The UK is dominated by two political parties: the Conservative ("Tory") Party and the Labour Party. However, from time to time, the third-largest party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LibDem), swings the balance between the Conservatives and Labour.

The LibDemsf appear now to be moving towards system solutions, or at least much more radical reforms than are currently being considered by the two major parties, as well as by the UK Treasury and the UK's financial services regulator, the Financial Services Authority.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has apparently now asked Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, to look at subjecting banks to a “premium rate” of corporation tax. This is because of public concerns at current bank profits and expected bonus payments in view of the limited competition in the financial services sector, following the dissolution of a few banks, and the limitation of activities by many others.

The LibDems are looking at a new bank tax which they believe be in force for several years - in fact till all state support has been withdrawn from the financial system. The Lib Dems have also become the first political party in the world to want to break up large banking groups. Sphere: Related Content

The Governor of the Bank of England Governor breaks with the deadly consensus

I am delighted to see that Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has broken with the orthodoxy that encourages a boom-bust economy and passes on the cost of bank failures to the ordinary taxpayer while providing the bulk of profits from bank successes to bank shareholders, directors and employees. Mr King put it this way: “Never in the field of financial endeavour has so much money been owed by so few to so many. And, one might add, so far with little real reform.”

In calling for banks to be split into separate utility companies and risky ventures, he called in effect for the return of the provisions, in the USA, of the Glass-Steagall Act - but at a global level.

By saying it is a delusion to think tougher regulation will prevent future financial crises, Mr King is arguing that what is needed is not more regulation but a structural solution which prevents them becoming “too large to fail” in the first place.

Most of the orthodoxy continues to focus on what are merely useful measures such as ensuring that banks have more capital, forcing banks to hold debt that automatically turns into equity in a crisis, ensuring that banks arrange in advance for their orderly death with so-called “living wills”, and limiting the incentives given to bankers for taking system-threatening risks. Such measures will be useful, but are not adequate for preventing future crises, as I have repeatedlz argued in this blog. Sphere: Related Content

It is not all relative. It is all relatives.

Did you realise that the UN Declaration of Human rights, includes the following: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and
is entitled to protection by society and the State"?

However, in the decades since that declaration was signed by every civilised country, those very countries have turned around and, so far from protecting the family, actually undermined the family by means of taxation, welfare, changes in the financial and debt systems, housing and land issues, employment and work (usually under the guise of "equal opportunities"), education (which means maass brainwashing in many things), and of course the criminal justice system.

You may not believe me in all the details of the above statement. But you only have to look around you, or look at the statistics in almost any country, to realise that, whatever the causes, the result is a decline in the occurence of the family, and the richness of family life.

You may not like my views, you may still be open to a sober analysis of the situation, such as you find in "The Penumbra Effect: Family-centred Public policy", which has just been published by The Relationships Foundation, based in Cambridge, UK (www.relationshipsfoundation.org)

That publication includes the following passage, which I thought might interest you too:
"The family has been, is, and will continue to be the most important single source of wellbeing for the majority of people. ‘It’s all relative’ has been a central tenet of post modernity – in a world without absolutes, everything is relative. This report seeks to subvert that basic proposition. In a world of change, family remains. In times of transition, we turn to our extended families and relatives. Relative means dependent on or interconnected with something else. It also refers to a person connected with another by blood or affinity. The extended family brings these meanings together to conclude this report. The centrality of family to all aspects of society enables us to proclaim, ‘It’s all relatives’." Sphere: Related Content

A Tepid Compromise: The EU proposed three bodies to regulate and supervise finance

According to the latest proposals from the EU, three new pan-European supervisory agencies (one each for banks, insurers and securities markets) are to be created for the purpose for drawing up and helping enforce a common rulebook for each activity throughout the EU.

The bodies will have more powers and resources than the three existing EU committees, which play only a co-ordinating role.

What will weaken the ability of the proposed three bodies will be recognition of the principle of “fiscal responsibility”, meaning that the new supervisory structure must not intrude on states’ finances.

Why will it weaken these bodies? Because fiscal IRresponsibility by states is one key reason for irresponsibilty by individual companies as well as by the system as a whole.

In the event of a dispute with or between member states, there an appeal would be possible, ultimately to the European Council, where the final decision would be by qualified majority voting. This makes the whole elaborate creation of these bodies subject to political rather than rational criteria.

Possibly, these proposals from the European Commission may be the best that can be managed at present, but it falls far short of what is needed.

What is needed? Two things: a single regulator and a (separate) single supervisor for the EU.

Why a single regulator for 3 different kinds of activities (banking, insurance and securities markets)? Because these three are converging - or one should say have increasingly converged, and will continue converging ever more, into a single seamless set of financial transactions. This is already largely the case, with the three activities being kept artificially separate for regulatory purposes in areas where these are kept separate (the UK and Switzerland, for example, already have one regulator supervising all three activities).

So why two separate bodies (one for rule-setting and one for rule-enforcement)?

Because rule-setting is and should be a different activity from rule-enforcement.

Naturally, learning from rule-enforcement should feed into the rule-setting process.

But that is better and more transparently done by two separate bodies than by a single one.

So much for the matter of the three bodies that are proposed.

Separtely, there is a proposal for a new “European Systemic Risk Board”, made up of representatives of central banks and financial supervisory groups from the 27 countries which constitute the EU.

I am glad that such a Risk Board is proposed. However, having the same people in the Risk Board as ultimately control the 3 bodies will do nothing to provide confidence in the risk assessments of the Board.

Morevoer, systemic risk in Europe cannot be separated from systemic risk in the USA or in Asia - the current challenges arise from systemic problems in the USA, and the next crisis will arise from challenges in Asia.

While a European Systemic Risk Board is better than no Board at all globally, it would be better for there to be a global board - and one along the lines that I proposed in my article in the New York Times Online ("DayBook" section) at the end of June this year. Sphere: Related Content

When does non-discrimination against a minority go so far as to become discrimination against the majority?

When there is a concerted effot to enshrine it in provisions such as are foreseen in the USA's Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which is apparently set to be debated on September 23.

As far as I can see:
if passed, ENDA will make it difficult for sports organisations to decline applications for employment from those who believe (like myself) that sports are bad for health.

ENDA will make it difficult for anti-nuclear (peace) organisations to keep out those who are committed to encouraging nuclear weapons.

We can expect to see the depressingly entertaining spectacle of environmentalist organisations being infiltrated by a dedicated minority of anti-environmental activists with the sole purpose of closing down the enviromentalist organisations.

And ENDA will make it impossible to prevent card-carrying members of the Communist Party from being recruited for the managerial cadre of US Government Agencies including the Defense Forces!

Welcome to the new and fascinating world of the United States of Lunatica. Sphere: Related Content