The world would be far more stable and prosperous with a thin veneer of international cooperation superimposed on strong national regulations than attempts to construct a global regulatory framework.

Eurofacts-27th March,2009

Vol14 No12

[This article has come at a crucial moment in the debate in which those with the power and influence wish to use the present crisis in the economy to put in effect their centuries old plans for a WORLD GOVERNMENT under an ELITE who owe no allegiance to FREE NATION STATES and on the contrary they have done their best to destroy.  These same exponents of world government and their followers couldn't have made that mission more possible with their powerful and wealthy elite which had only to look the other way while the present disastrous and most grave financial debacle took place. We will need to watch them closely as to them FREE NATION STATES will lead to their downfall. But they and with the fruits of their ancestors have almost completed their task of world domination where the individual must conform or be terminated with as much feeling as sacrificing a lamb to slaughter.]



Harmless Dreams

It would be naive to conclude that Gordon's -plans are simply the harmless dreams of a failed political leader who wishes to distract attention from his own failings.  For the clrion call for a GLOBAL SYSTEM of FINANCIAL REGULATION and for GREATER POWERS and RESOURCES for the IMF and the WORLD BANK can be heard EVERYWHERE.

The DEMAND has come from BERNARD Bernanke, the chairman of the U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE , from members of OBAMA'S administration as well as from ANGELA MERKEL and NICOLAS SARKOZY, academic experts and newspaper editors in the US, EUROPE  and ASIA.

Like the EU COMMISSION, the advocates of GLOBAL POLITICAL INTEGRATION have used the FINANCIAL CRISIS as their pretext of CHANGE (and done so rather more successfully than Mr Barroso), having exploited the widespread conviction that the INTERNATIONAL BANKING CRISIS requires a tightening of GLOBAL REGULATION and SUPERVISION.


Global College

In an article in the Economist on 14th march Dani Roddrik, an econo0mics professor at Harvard, accepts that there must be better supervision and regulation but also grasps where the current trends are leading:

"If we have learned anything from the crisis it is that financial supervision needs to be tightened and its scope broadened.  It seems only a small step to the idea that we need much stronger regulation as well: a global college of regulators, say; a binding code of international conduct; or even an international financial regulator",

Professor Rodrik argues that this view is FLAWED because it presumes that leading countries will be prepared to surrender significant SOVEREIGNTY to INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES,  BRITAIN may have done exactly exactly THAT but he evidently sees no prospect of AMERICA, CHINA, or INDIA doing so.

" It is hard to imagine that America's Congress would ever sign off on the kind of intrusive international oversight of domestic lending practices that might have prevented the SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE MELTDOWN, let alone avert another crisis. Nor is it likely that the IMF will be allowed to turn itself into a global lender of last resort."

The far more likely outcome, he aserts is that the mismatch between market and the scope of governance would prevail, leaving global finance "as unsafe as ever".  Even if leading nations agree there would still be a distinct possibility that they would end up converging on the wrong set of regulations.

Regulatory Framework


Global financial regulation, he concludes, is neither feasible, nor prudent nor desirable.  THE WORLD, hw points out, would be far more stable and prosperous with a thin veneer of international cooperation superimposed on strong national regulations than attempts to construct a GLOBAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

He cites the example of the general Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  This was less ambitious than its successor body, the WTO; its genius was that it left NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS to craft their own social and economic polices as long as they duid not follow blatantly protectionist policies.

Although it might seem paradoxical an architecture that respects national diversity does more to promote globalisation than ambitious plans that wish it away.

Many of these argument can be applied with equal validity to the EUROPEAN UNION.  For the moment, however, global integration offers better prospects for those who wish to pursue the trans-national AGENDA than the EU whose shortcomings are more and more apparent.  Like the EUROPEAN PROJECT, the project of WORLD GOVERNMENT is one which can never be completed, but the attempt to CREATE IT has the potential to GREATLY DAMAGE world economic prospects and to erode democratic institutions; indeed it arguably poses a GREATER THREAT to the latter than ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM.

As Margaret Thatcher has written:

"...a sound and stable international order can only be founded upon respect for NATIONS and for NATION STATES.  Whatever the flaws of particular NATIONALISMS, NATIONAL PRIDE and NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, constitute the BEST GROUNDING for a FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY.  Attempts to SUPPRESS NATIONAL DIFFERENCES or to AMALGAMATE DIFFERENT NATIONS with distinct TRADITIONS into artificial STATES are very likely TO FAIL, perhaps BLOODILY.  The wise statesman will CELEBRATE NATIONHOOD-and USE IT."



'There can be no greater stirrings for a great cause than to find that your friend is your enemy and your enemy your friend'.



[Font Altered-Bolding & underling Used-Comments in Brackets]