Learn to Walk Before You Run

On Monday 9th April was one of those days where you start to wonder if stock traders and bankers live under rocks. Yesterday stock markets around the world fell as traders reacted to fears about Greece's government being voted out, Spain having to pay ridiculous borrowing costs and Italian and Spanish bonds not doing particularly well. The traders came back from their Easter holidays, remembered the Eurozone was in danger and panicked; the FTSE 100 fell by more than 2%, the DAX by more than 2.5% and the Dow Jones continued to fall for the fifth day. But how did they only just remember? How for the last few months have the markets not reacted to the Eurozone crisis? Yesterday was a prime example of the problem with modern economies; we have an unstable global economy with countries that do not understand we have a global economy and rely too heavily on each other.

The Eurozone debt crisis has been lingering around since 2009 but only in the last year has it really reared its ugly head. The issue was created in a time when everything was looking economically good and letting in weaker economies into a united economic union seemed a good idea. But in Capitalism, what goes up must come down. So when in 2008 everything went down, the Eurozone went with it. But if this crisis has been lurking since 2009, why has it not be solved already? Because the large economies in the Eurozone, Germany and France, have no interest in weakening their economies in order to save other countries. This selfishness is a vital part of Capitalism but can have no place in an economic and monetary union. A union implies helping one another and putting each other on an equal level; the Eurozone runs in a way that elevates Germany and France at the cost of every other country. If Germany suddenly had a debt problem they would demand that all other Eurozone countries help them, but when Greece asked for help the answer was to help them at the cost of completely destroying their economy. The Eurozone is not aware of how to exist with each other as unified economies and are a sign that globalisation and the free market system are not working.

So what is the answer? Surely the simple and obvious answer is self reliance. Local economies need to learn how to rely on themselves. The problem with globalisation is that it creates countries that rely on each completely, thus if one country goes under so do many others. In a self reliant system if Germany went under, it wouldn't drag France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Austria and many others down with it. In fact with self reliance, there would be no threat of going under. If exports were down one year, it wouldn't be a problem as they would not be a major are of income.

But how would this system of self reliance work? If services charged at running costs, if taxes were fair and made the richer in society pay their fair share, if the public sector was strengthened, if goods were sold at cost price then an economy could sustain itself. Instead of putting money in foreign banks, money should be put into the central bank. Businesses should be encouraged to keep work and jobs in the country, instead of out sourcing. Services, such as public transport, power and water should be nationalised. This ensures users are not crippled by prices, meaning they have more money to put into the economy.

The way our current economic system is set up puts too much reliance on an unstable global economy. This cannot and will not last forever. Surely the time for change is now.

The Coalition is Watching You

On April 1^st the Home Office thought it was the perfect time to announce plans to pass legislation that will force internet firms to give real time information on the communications of its customers to the GCHQ (UK Government Communication Headquarters). This means that the GCHQ would know who you have called, text, emailed and what websites you have visited. Although they would not know the contents of the compunctions, being able to know who is talking to who is a powerful tool. This Orwellian scheme at first seemed like some stupid and elaborate April fools, but as time went on it became clear the coalition is serious about creating a piece of legislation that will destroy a significant proportion of a UK citizens civil liberties.

At the moment if you want to know who someone has been texting/emailing/calling or what websites they have been visiting you need a warrant. This ensures that the public’s basic rights are not infringed in the name of security and also stops law enforcement from arresting people based just on the fact that ‘they called someone who’s a bit dodgy’. To obtain a warrant you need clear evidence that the person is probably guilty of a crime and that the evidence gathered with the warrant will help convict the person for this particular crime. This system works. This system ensures safety of the public from threats and also protects them from a ‘Big Brother’ society. Why destroy a system that works? The system has been this way for over 100 years and although longevity is not an argument to never change, in those 100+ years the system has become a benchmark of freedom and liberty in western civilization.

The Home Office has said that the proposed system would ensure the safety of the public and society. How? Knowing that Man X, known terrorist, has been emailing Man Y does not mean Man Y. This new system would just lengthen the list of people suspected of being terrorists without actually stopping terrorists. The proposal also seems to overestimate the terrorist threat in the UK. This is a Cold War response to a 21^st Century problem; creating a climate of fear without solving the issue. It does not take an anti-terrorism expert to work out that if you heighten surveillance of one area of communications, terrorists and criminals will just find another way of communication. An ineffective fear mongering system is what is being proposed.

The issue of surveillance is one that transcends political views; left or right, we can all agree that if the Home Office gets it way, our civil liberties will have started to have been destroyed. It’s a slippery slope from surveillance for security to ‘Big Brother is Watching You’, that is why we must draw the line here. We must stand up and say ‘No’. We must untie across party lines and say ‘Some things are not up for debate, and one of them is our Civil Liberties’.