CURRENT AFFAIRS 17.11.2016---Excell Career India IAS Academy No: 28, Sathya Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006
source: Excell Career India, Chennai -- best wishes
CURRENT AFFAIRS 17.11.2016
1. Punjab,
Haryana set for face-off over SYL canal
Punjab and Haryana are set for
another face-off on the issue of sharing water from the Sutlej-Yamuna Link
(SYL) canal as the Punjab Assembly on Wednesday passed two resolutions — one
against the construction of the canal and the other demanding a levy on water
to non-riparian States. Haryana called Punjab’s move “unconstitutional.” Punjab
Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal moved a resolution at a special session,
directing the government, Cabinet and officials, in public interest, to neither
hand over any land of the State to any agency for the construction of the
canal, nor allow anyone to work on the project or give any cooperation for this
purpose.
Cong. MLAs abstain
The resolution was passed even as all
42 Congress MLAs, who resigned from the Assembly after the Supreme Court had on
Thursday last invalidated the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004,
stayed away from the session. Mr. Badal said the State government would do
everything possible to stop water from flowing to Haryana. “Any decision to rob
the State of its legitimate rights would not be acceptable to the Shiromani
Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party government. Also, there is no need to
construct the SYL canal,” he said. “The House takes a serious view of the fact
that Punjab is already falling short of its canal water needs and farmers are
facing a serious water crisis,” said Mr. Badal, adding that Punjab, India’s
grain bowl, is becoming ‘barren’ and consequently posing a threat to national
food security and the State’s economy.
‘Royalty for river
waters’
The Assembly also passed a
resolution, moved by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Madan Mohan Mittal,
directing the government to take up the matter of levying royalty for river
waters flowing to Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi, which are the non-riparian
States.
2. A challenge and an opportunity
The Hindu
A year and a half
after China and Pakistan announced plans for an Economic Corridor, the CPEC, to connect “Kashgar to Gwadar”, the two countries
operationalised the trade route this week, with the first shipment moving to
Gwadar port and on to the Gulf and Africa. Many of the infrastructure and
energy projects that are part of CPEC, worth an estimated $46 billion, are already
under way. Of this, $35-38 billion is committed in the energy sector, in gas,
coal and solar energy across Pakistan, with the combined expected capacity
crossing 10,000 MW. This is roughly double the current shortfall the country
experiences. In addition, the 3,000-km rail and roadway project is expected to
generate 700,000 jobs by 2030. While Pakistan sees CPEC as a game changer,
there are many challenges. There are some misgivings domestically, with critics
questioning the project’s viability, and some accusing China of launching a
second “East India Company”. There are the security challenges too, especially
in the western areas near the key Gwadar port, where militants ranging from
Baloch nationalists to the Taliban and the Islamic State have carried out
attacks. Systemic challenges include project delays in the CPEC’s first year,
which the World Bank warns could prove to be an impediment to Pakistan’s
overall growth. Pakistan-India tensions, unless contained, too could endanger
sectors of the project where Pakistani troops are engaged in providing
security. Finally, the economic slowdown in China and the political instability
in Pakistan could impact the project’s future as well. However, these internal considerations for Pakistan shouldn’t blur
the bigger picture for India: CPEC is
now a reality. In the past India’s reaction to the project, announced a few
weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to China in 2015, had turned
from dismissal and disdain to disapproval and then to outright opposition.
India even raised concerns over projects in disputed Gilgit-Baltistan at the UN
General Assembly. Not only has the project gone ahead despite the objections,
but China now sees CPEC as a physical link between its One Belt, One Road
(OBOR) project and the Maritime Silk Route (MSR). India has refused to be a
part of either. That Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are all on board the
OBOR and the MSR should give India pause. It is important for Delhi to also
take a closer look at the security implications of the China-Pakistan clinch
that is fast drawing in Russia in the north, all the way to the Arabian Sea,
while China plans a floating naval base off Gwadar.
3. A pivot to China?
Till 1750, the Asian
giants produced half of global economic output before gunboats and colonisation
reshaped trade, and subsequently production and consumption. There is now a
consensus that the locus of global wealth is again going to be in Asia. The
implication of the interruption, or reversal, has not been explored as the
strategic dimensions continue to be seen through a Western prism. Western
analysts focus on the relative decline of the U.S. rather than on Asia’s
re-emergence. The underlying assumption is that the world needs global
institutions, rules and agreements to solve problems that countries cannot solve
on their own, while not addressing the question that has now come centre stage
— who sets the worlds standards and for what purpose? Containment, relevant
during the Cold War, is not proving effective in Asia with China emerging as
the largest global economy. Alliances are also losing relevance in Asia as
countries are gaining influence more because of the strength of their economy
than the might of the military. Moving away from global rules, for example the
climate agreement, questions their relevance for meeting global concerns. Globalisation,
driven by the ‘Washington Consensus’, dominated global policymaking, with the
World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation as the
institutional centres of gravity. Developing countries have complained for
decades about the ‘terms of trade’, ‘conditionalities’ and intellectual
property rights linked with trade sanctions. The limits to trade liberalisation
are now also being raised in the West. David Ricardo’s arguments of comparative
advantage of countries and Adam Smith’s emphasis on competition creating wealth
are not relevant in today’s knowledge-based, urbanised world of middle-class
consumers and global value chains. The problem is not trade, which has been
happening for over 2,000 years, but the nature of recent rules going beyond
facilitating commercial transactions. Donald Trump, recognising global trends,
is reviewing the role of the U.S. based on alliances, rules and values. He
prefers an “America First” approach, wants to “reset” ties with Russia around
“mutual respect”, and wishes for the “strongest relationship” with China, with
trade as the foundation of bilateral ties.
Asian views
The thought leadership
for shaping global politics, with Asia restored at its economic centre, should
revert to the 2,000-year-old pattern of commercial transactions, with trade
rules limited to standardisation and dispute settlement. Asian prosperity is
more than a geo-economic or geopolitical concept, underlined by President
Barack Obama’s failed attempt to prevent Asia from setting the new rules for
trade. China and India have much in common, if we move out of the Western
frame, as both are civilisational states whose contours were shaped by major
snow-fed rivers. In both states, no strategic thinker advocated conquest of
lands outside this sphere, in sharp contrast to Western strategic thinking on
control of the seas, security alliances and rules pushing common values as the
best way of organising international relations. In political thought also,
Amartya Sen has pointed out, religious tolerance and human rights are not
Western concepts. Chinese civilisation has had a more secular orientation than
any other civilisation. In Indian political thought, authority was based on the
interests of all. In both civilisations, the king was regarded as guardian and
not creator of the law. The Asian giants have yet to reconstruct international
relations theory around a global vision of sharing natural resources,
technology and prosperity — issues they have together fought for over 50 years
in the United Nations.
India’s strategic
priorities
China took advantage
of global value chains shaping long-term economic calculations, redefining
global power and securing a head start over India. China will remain the world’s
largest producer of goods and India can be the largest producer of services.
The services sector will be the real driver of future growth in Asia, with
affluence concentrated in cities, giving a younger India future advantage. India
has the capacity for global leadership as the hub of the new knowledge-based
order, including new pharmaceuticals and crop varieties, as it is the only
country with both extensive endemic biodiversity and world-class endogenous
biotechnology industry. Along with global leadership in software-led
innovation, foundation of the new low-carbon digital-sharing economy, India is
developing low-cost solutions for urbanisation, governance, health and
education problems. Sharing solutions to common problems as a new form of international
relations will provide legitimacy to reshape the global order with
sustainability as the defining value. China is keen to have India on board its
One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative for connectivity-led trade in Eurasia. It
has suggested a free trade agreement and both countries recognise the synergies
for achieving the ‘Asian Century’. India’s knowledge-based strengths complement
those of China in infrastructure and investment. India should seek to
‘redefine’ OBOR, adding a stronger component for a ‘Digital Sustainable Asia’,
and for Eurasian connectivity to have two nodes, as has been the case
throughout civilisation. A mutual recognition of ancient special interests in
the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean should be a strategic objective. This
step will enable an understanding on issues like membership of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, global terrorism, and Gwadar, which are irritants in the
development of stronger ties. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must recognise that
trade will trump security.
4. Apex court refuses to lift ban on jallikattu
Questioning the need
to “tame” a domestic animal like the bull, the Supreme Court on Wednesday
dismissed a plea by Tamil Nadu to review a 2014 apex court judgment banning jallikattu . The court further held that the
event had nothing to do with the exercise of the fundamental right of religious
freedom. Rejecting the submissions made by the State government, a Bench of
Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Nariman said Tamil Nadu cannot explain it
away as a mere act of “taming a bull.” It said it runs counter to the concept
of welfare of the animal, which is the basic foundation of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. The State, represented by senior advocate
Shekhar Naphade, had countered that the event was defined as an act of “taming”
of bulls under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act of 2009 and did not
amount to cruelty. “The 2009 Act was introduced to stop any kind of torture.
Taming a bull is not torture. You cannot banjallikattu just because there was torture long
ago. It is like a bank stopping all loans just because somebody had cheated it
once long ago,” Mr. Naphade submitted.
‘Cannot celebrate
cruelty’
Appearing for the
Animal Welfare Board of India, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, countered
that “festivals cannot celebrate cruelty.” He argued that the 2009 State law
was “repugnant” to the 1960 Central law
5. A sense of only itself
India’s middle classes
have travelled a long way since the late 19th century when they planted the saplings
of the freedom movement. On the way to India’s Independence, they filled the
jails, and while they could not prevent the horrors of Partition, they wrote a
unique document for the new nation: the Constitution of the Republic of India. After
Independence, it was the middle class again that supplied the teachers,
doctors, engineers, lawyers, administrators and the other builders of Project
India. It was a very imperfect project and there were strong disagreements, but
there was no denying the pride these middle-class servants felt in building the
Republic.
Middle-class
activism
Things have changed in
recent decades. Beginning in the 1990s, India’s middle class — many times its
size in 1947 and amorphous in its composition — started to have a sense only of
itself. Gone is a sense of the nation as a country which, while divided, is
still one where everyone has equal rights and where no one should be left
behind. In its place, the middle class is now happy to wear a flag-waving
nationalism on its sleeve and is concerned only about itself. The middle class
as driving public action is now a thing of the past. The last time India saw
mass protest by the middle class was after the horrific rape in New Delhi in
December 2012. That did lead to new legislation. But December 2012 was an
exception and mostly women marched on the streets. Middle-class activism, as it
is now called, is usually only about matters of immediate concern — the
neighbourhood, the locality, and the city.
It is not a caricature
to say that the better off among the middle class are worried today only about
their next gadget, next holiday, next car and next home. At one level, India’s
middle class is now inured to the world outside its own class. At another
level, it displays an aggressive nationalism and is completely disdainful of
the idea of the community as a nation.
In the initial days
after the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1, 000 notes, the middle class played
to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s script. It was willing to put up with its own
inconvenience for what it saw as a larger cause. But the middle class is impervious
to how the members of India’s vast informal sector, the rural communities in
unbanked regions, the savers of cash holdings and others were going to manage. Today,
when middle-class concerns are expressed in strength, they are expressed on
social media — with hate. The voices in anger are overwhelmingly directed
against “anti-nationals”, religious minorities, and, if they are reckless
enough, they can be casteist too.
Bhopal as a test
case
Consider, for example,
the shooting in late October of eight Muslim undertrials after they purportedly
broke out of Bhopal Central Jail while killing a prison guard. Even a decade or
two ago, a shooting of such a large number and so suspiciously in abuse of the
law would have attracted a measure of anger from the middle class which is
aware of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Not now. There has been the
isolated statement by a civil liberties group and the odd statement by one or
two political parties. Nothing more. In the media few newspapers have either
editorialised strongly or sent their reporters in hunt of the true story. It
has required the rare and fine exceptions like this newspaper to expose the
lies. The silence of TV has been deafening. Instead, there have been online
diatribes against those who question the official version. Here is one posted
on Twitter on October 31: “Why [sic] people are raising questions whether the
encounter was fake or not? Terrorists should be neutralised wherever found.”
And here is one from the Letters column of the digital publication Scroll.in in response to an article questioning
the official version: “These law-abiding SIMI terrorists stayed as state guests
in a high-security establishment which relies on the tax payers money — and
you’re okay with that? These people should have been shot dead a long time
back”. India’s online population remains small, and on social media it is
infinitesimally small. But it wields a power far beyond its size. What it says
resonates with the political powers in ascendance. And what these political
forces say resonates with this vocal social media population — drawn entirely
from the middle class. This is not the first time that the murder of
undertrials has evoked the barest of protests from the middle classes. In April
2015, five Muslim terror accused who were in handcuffs and were being shifted
from one prison to another in Telangana were shot dead inside a van by the
police because apparently one of them tried to grab a policeman’s rifle. (This
happened within weeks of two incidents in the State in which two Students’
Islamic Movement of India activists and three policemen were killed.) A few
questions from a few newspapers, a few statements, and one state Special
Investigation Team probe which has gone nowhere. It does not seem to matter.
Of course, the
“who-cares” attitude or the “they-deserved-it” reaction is most obvious when
Muslims are involved. It is not just the professional trolls who are venting
spleen on the Net. Visit any story of any English newspaper or magazine and see
the comments on a story about India’s Muslims. You can only despair for the
future after reading the venom being spewed there. The online comments on “SIMI
men had no guns, say witnesses” in The
Hindu of November 2 are a
representative sample.
Anti-minorityism out
in the open
It is time to stop
pussyfooting about what the middle class (Hindus) think about some of their
fellow citizens. We have to accept that a creeping anti-minorityism has now
become full-blown among the middle class. From a whispering conversation among
the like-minded it has now entered everyday conversation among families,
friends and office colleagues. It is there all around us. The disdain for
everyone else is the outcome of the very successful build-up of Hindu
majoritarianism over the past three decades. This has now reached a new peak
under the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It threatens
to march even higher in the run-up to the next round of State elections in 2017
and the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The majoritarianism of the middle class
reflects the essential philosophy of the party in power and in return it
strengthens this exclusionary philosophy. It has been a long journey since the
beginning of the freedom movement and the drafting of the Constitution.
6. Violence that’s not gender-neutral
The recent judgment of
the Supreme Court in Harsora
v. Harsora on the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) is of great concern as it
deletes the words ‘adult male’ in Section 2(q) of the Act. The PWDVA is a
gender-specific law enacted to protect women against domestic violence at the
hands of men. The core provision in this law is that complainants can only be
women. The law also restricts under Section 2(q) that complaints can only be
filed against adult males, or their relatives, who could be women. But it
cannot be filed solely against the relatives of the husband. Section 2(q)
states: “‘Respondent’ means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved
person has sought any relief under this Act. Provided that an aggrieved wife or
female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a
complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”
In this judgment, the
constitutionality of Section 2(q) was challenged. The court, while referring to
domestic violence, held that “it is clear that such violence is gender neutral.
It is also clear that physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and
economic abuse can all be by women against other women. Even sexual abuse may,
in a given fact circumstance, be by one woman on another. Section 3, therefore…
seeks to outlaw domestic violence of any kind against a woman, and is gender
neutral.”
Reality of domestic
violence
With utmost respect to
the Supreme Court, it is absolutely incorrect to state that domestic violence
is gender-neutral. It is not. The world over, a vast majority of domestic
violence is experienced by women at the hands of men. It is not a random event of
violence but is a consequence and a cause of women’s inequality and is linked
to the discrimination and devaluing of women. As per the National Crime Records
Bureau, reported cases of domestic violence in India went up from 50,703 in
2003 to 1,18,866 in 2013. These are all cases of domestic violence against men.
The U.K. Violent Crime and Sexual Offences study of 2011-2012 reported that 80
per cent of offenders in domestic or sexual violence were male.
In 1983, Section 498A
was introduced in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for the first time made
domestic violence to married women a criminal offence. Section 498A is only
against the husband and husband’s relatives because it recognised the gendered
nature of the crime. When the PWDVA was drafted, the question as to whether the
definition of ‘respondent’ should be restricted to men or should be
gender-neutral was heavily debated and finally Section 2(q) was drafted to keep
it consistent with Section 498A. The judgment does not consider this history
and background of domestic violence legislation. It goes on to declare that
even the word ‘adult’ in Section 2(q) should be deleted, because a 16- or
17-year-old can also cause domestic violence. The court reasons that in the
context of the object of the PWDVA, there is a “microscopic difference between
male and female, adult and non-adult” and hence these words should be deleted.
Thrust on formal
equality
The entire thrust of
the Supreme Court’s decision is ironically on the principle of equality because
it restricts the reach of a beneficial statute meant to protect women against
all forms of domestic violence whether by men or by women, adult or minors. Our
Constitution, however, has interpreted equality to mean substantive equality
which, as elaborated by Oxford University professor Sandra Fredman, has four
dimensions: redressing disadvantage; countering stigma, prejudice, humiliation
and violence; transforming social and institutional structures; and
facilitating political participation and social inclusion. Therefore, formal
equality of treating all persons equally as ‘respondents’ is not sufficient and
we need to look at the disadvantage and violence faced by women at the hands of
men. The same principle of equality also mandates in Article 15(3) of the
Constitution that special provisions can be made for women and children and the
PWDVA was enacted as a special provision for their protection. It does not need
to be gender-neutral. While the judgment relies on the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, where
there is no restriction on the respondent being male, it surprisingly fails to
observe the criminal offences of sexual harassment, stalking, voyeurism and
rape under the IPC which are all gender-specific and against men. This does not
mean that men may not be victims of violence, but when women are victims of
domestic violence, evidence shows that such violence is largely perpetrated by
men. With this judgment, there is a real danger that the PWDVA would be used
against women and minors and not against the real perpetrators of domestic
violence. It could lead to a further dilution of the PWDVA and also dilute
other women-centric laws. In her 2015 Report, the UN Special Rapporteur on
Violence against Women, Rashida Manjoo, pointed out that the shift in domestic
violence laws from gender-specificity to gender-neutrality is regressive as it
disregards the need for special measures that acknowledge that women are
disproportionately impacted by violence. The Supreme Court’s decision will have
serious repercussions on the lives of women in India.
7. Commerce Ministry for blanket ban on FDI in tobacco sector
In what could lead to
a complete ban on foreign direct investment (FDI) in the tobacco sector, the Commerce
Ministry’s Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) is finalising
a Cabinet note on the matter. The department has now proposed a ban on FDI
through the trademark or licensing route. “FDI in manufacturing of tobacco
products is already banned. We are now proposing to extend the FDI ban beyond
manufacturing to all activities, including licensing for franchise, trademark,
brand name, management contracts and other technology collaboration,” a
government official told BusinessLine.
With both Health and the Finance ministries on board, efforts are on by the
DIPP to ensure that the matter is taken up by the Cabinet soon, the official
said. If the Cabinet gives its go ahead, it could affect business of companies
such as Godfrey Phillips India, a flagship company of the KK Modi Group, which
has a licensing arrangement with US-based Philip Morris. “We want to plug all
loopholes through which FDI could come into the manufacturing of tobacco
products in the country,” the official added. Some argue that the objective of
discouraging tobacco consumption cannot be served by only a ban on FDI. “A
decision also needs to be taken on phasing out existing investments in the
sector made by domestic companies,” another official said. A number of
non-governmental organisations such as Crusade Against Tobacco have a different
point of view. They claim that as long as powerful foreign tobacco companies
have some interest in the Indian market they would keep using their influence
to slow down tobacco control efforts. Cigarette stocks on Wednesday fell up to
18 per cent. Shares of Godfrey Phillips India tanked 17.68 per cent, ITC by
2.94 per cent and NTC Industries went down by 0.65 per cent on BSE.
8. Farm turnaround
THE HINDU
The long overdue
increase in minimum support prices (MSP) announced for the rabi crops, the
highest since 2011-12, is a welcome measure to transfer higher incomes to
farmers. Better prices, after a good monsoon, should encourage farmers to bring
more acreage under cultivation of winter crops such as wheat, certain pulses
and oilseeds. The MSP for pulses and oilseeds have been increased between 10
and 16 per cent, while that for wheat has been raised by 6.6 per cent on the
recommendation of Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. Assuming sowing
happens as projected, a second bumper crop can be expected this agricultural
year. Good monsoon rains, increased acreage and high MSP have already led to a
record harvest in the kharif season. Two bumper harvests in the same
agricultural year can have a transformative effect on the farm economy, which
has been suffering for nearly three years due to unseasonal rains and sub-par
monsoons. Farmers have also been under stress due to higher production costs
and low returns on their yields as MSP has almost stagnated since 2013-14. With
food inflation under control, an increase in MSP was probably warranted. Higher
MSP, resulting in higher incomes, is also necessary to revive demand from rural
areas for manufactured goods. However, it is not enough to just announce higher
procurement prices. The announced prices need to reach the farmers. That will
happen only with robust procurement infrastructure. Wheat farmers will have no
complaints on that front. However, the government’s record on procurement of
pulses has been disappointing. Farmers were forced to sell a lot of their
produce below MSP in the last few months due to the failure of procurement
agencies to reach out. A repeat of that experience when the rabi crop is
harvested could lead to loss of faith in the system and reverse the gains made
this year on increasing acreage of pulses. Farmers faced with losses will
prefer returning to cultivation of wheat, paddy or sugarcane in the next
season. That can prove disastrous for the government’s efforts to reduce pulses
shortage and keep prices under control. Increased production of wheat and paddy
would also put more strain on the grain holding capacity of the procurement
agencies, and once again, foodgrain stored in the open would either rot or get
infested.
Many of the
calculations for the current rabi season can also go wrong due the ongoing
currency crisis caused by the demonetisation of the ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency
notes. If changed money does not reach farmers in time, they may not be able to
buy enough seeds and fertilisers needed in this current rabi season. Finding
labour to work in the farms may also prove to be challenging in the current
scenario when farmers do not have money in the accepted denominations to pay
wages. The government needs to take cognisance of the ground realities to
ensure farmers suffer minimum hardship.
9. New world order
Brexit! CETA in trouble! And now
Trump! These headlines have become reference points to argue that globalisation
is not just at a standstill but is in reverse. Donald Trump is known to have
stated that climate change is a ‘hoax’. He is widely expected to review a
scientific report issued by the Obama administration that provided the basis of
much of the regulation the current administration undertook. And just this
month, 105 countries ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change. This is
the least of the upheavals expected on account of Trump’s election. He has
called the NAFTA regional trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico a
‘disaster’ and has voiced his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership
agreement that is awaiting ratification. Maybe it is time to take a deep breath
before rushing to announce the demise of globalisation. The most visible forms
of globalisation have been trade, the environment, and migration. All three are
likely to take a hit under a Trump administration.
Global cues
Europe has also been stirring in the
direction of nationalism and navel gazing. The migration of refugees, mostly
from Syria, into Europe has instigated many nationalistic parties to talk of
sealing borders. The fear of many of the refugees coming into the UK was a
tipping point in favour of the Brexit vote. Yet, nobody claimed that
globalisation has to follow a smooth secular path. Many countries with less
significant footprints on the planet have introduced speed bumps off and on in
their path towards global interaction. Sharing and interacting transnationally
in the pursuit of their own objectives is the hallmark of globalisation and
does not mean integration. When the rich and developed world sold the idea of
free trade and lowering barriers to everyone they met, it was from a position
of strength. They were well positioned to benefit from it. The poor bought it
with some sweeteners thrown in. Then they got better at it. The rich world has
now woken up and realised what has happened. Trump, during the debates, did not
mince words when he accused China of ‘raping’ the US in trade and of stealing
US jobs. When Britain voted to exit the EU, apart from concerns about
immigration, Britons felt that they had relinquished control of their country
to EU bureaucrats and wanted it back. These events are nothing more than the
first order and second order effects of globalisation. In an initial
enthusiasm, we rush to accept new developments and take two steps forward.
Whether it is WTO agreements or climate rules. Then on reflection, we realise
some of the negative effects of what we agreed to and take one step back. This
is the second order effect. It gives us time to pause, reflect, and
consolidate. While Briton wants its sovereignty back, it still wants to trade
freely with everyone in the EU. It has to, in order to survive. After all the
reviewing by the Trump administration is done, the lobbyists of major US corporations
will sit down with the new President and explain to him, off the record, why he
should leave most things alone. And that is what the tiny Walloon region of
Belgium realised when it finally gave approval to the Canada-EU Trade Agreement
(CETA).
Post a Comment