Category Archives: Democracy

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FAR RIGHT AS A VOTING PROPOSITION.

07 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in 2019., Democracy, European Elections 2019, European Union., Freedom, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Post - truth politics., Reality., The common good., The far-right., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics, World Racism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Fourteen-minute read)

BEFORE YOU VOTE IN THE FORTHCOMING EUROPEAN ELECTION YOU SHOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY DO THE FAR RIGHT PARTIES STAND FOR.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The European far right represents a confluence of many ideologies: nationalism, socialism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism.

Given the significant variations that exist between these parties and groups, any term that groups them together and compares them will have limitations.

But the term “far right” is the least problematic precisely because it can be used, on the one hand, to identify the overarching similarities that make them comparable, and on the other to distinguish between different variants.

Though Europe’s far-right parties differ in important respects, they are motivated by a common sense of mission: to save their homelands from what they view as the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and globalization by creating a closed-off, ethnically homogeneous society.

Under the “far right” umbrella, we must distinguish between two sub-categories: extreme and radical right.

The extreme right includes both vigilante groups and political parties that are often openly racist, have clear ties to fascism and also employ violence and aggressive tactics. These groups may operate either outside or within the realm of electoral politics or both.

The term “right-wing populism”, however, is less appropriate.

Populism is an even broader umbrella that often includes disparate parties and groups.

To narrow down this category, we often tend to conflate populism and nationalism, identifying a party as populist, not on the basis of its populist attributes – what party doesn’t claim to speak on behalf of the people in a democracy? – but on the basis of its nationalist attributes.

But despite the similarities between “populism” and “nationalism” – both emphasise conflict lines, focus on the collective, and put forward a vision of an ideal society – the two are conceptually different. While the former pits the people against the elites, the latter pits the in-group against the out-group.

In part, both can be seen as a backlash against the political establishment in the wake of the financial and migrant crises, but the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.

This civic nationalist rhetoric presents culture as a value issue, justifying exclusion on purported threats posed by those who do not share “our” liberal democratic values.

The justification is that certain cultures and religions are intolerant and inherently antithetical to democracy.

They tend to oppose procedural democracy with some common themes, such as hostility to immigration, anti-Islamic rhetoric and Euroscepticism.

The forthcoming elections are going to expose just who are they, where they are, what are their political programmes and why they have risen from the political fringes.

So where does this leave Europe’s political landscape?

Will the far right triumph in Europe in 2019?

Will the far right redraw the political map of Europe?

Is the European Union being pulled inexorably towards the agenda of the far

right? 

There is little point here in listing party after party, it is sufficient to say that they all to some degrees or other blame and want to get rid of migrants. While conveniently ignoring that their countries are for the most part made up of refugees in one form or another.

If the far right wins 100 seats in the new European parliament this year, and the EPP group’s drift to nationalism and xenophobia continues, it is safe to say the projects of integration and social liberalism will be on hold.

They believed in what Trump promised in the USA.

The reality is that the EU in the forthcoming elections needs to look at the next distribution of structural funds. It needs to redefine the allocation criteria to reflect the preparedness of regions and authorities to receive and integrate migrants.

What is the solution?

It is surely this:

For the centre-left and the radical left to seek tactical unity with as many green and liberal parties as possible to defend democracy, suppress fascism and end austerity.

At the moment it’s hard to get the leaders of the European radical left to occupy the same room, let alone persuade social democratic politicians to collaborate with them.

However, the migration issue is the starting point of a continental power struggle pitching two very different versions of the principles that should bind Europe together.

One is liberal democratic, and attuned to the notion of an open society; the other is fortress-minded, illiberal and intolerant.

These far-right leaders are now uniting to attempt a national-populist takeover of the EU as we’ve known it.

There is, however, one wild-card option with a non-negligible chance of happening:

Theresa May falls, a second referendum cancels Brexit, Article 50 is revoked, Britain elects new MEPs and a new, left-led British government appoints a commissioner to match its politics. A unilateral cancellation of Brexit would merely leave Britain with all its rights under the status quo: but it would alter the dynamics of Europe.

Because even at 40 per cent of the vote, a new raft of left-affiliated MEPs would shift the balance in the parliament, while a feisty, communicative left commissioner from the fifth-largest economy in the world would tilt the balance in the EU.

For the democratic-minded across Europe, Europe needs to get its priorities right before it’s too late.

We all need to ask ourselves why should we relive the pain and terror today of far-right policies?

Surely if we Europeans have learnt anything it is that we all must distance ourselves from fascism in order to appeal to broader electorates.

And so herein lies the problem.

If nationalism is always a feature of the far right, as most researchers agree, what is the added value of the term “populism”? To put it another way, what is the difference between a radical right-wing party and a populist radical right-wing party? While populism may or may not be an attribute of some far-right parties, it is not their defining feature. Rather, nationalism is.

But while these parties differ in many ways, their progressive entrenchment in their national political systems raises similar questions about out-group exclusion, anti-immigration narratives and mainstream responses.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a leading advocate of the alt-right in the United States, is hoping the movement can lead Europe’s nationalist and populist parties to a strong showing next May.

For me “Bannon is American and has no place in a European political party.

It is disrespectful and unnecessary!

Many of the themes of Bannonism/Trumpism do not translate well in Europe.

For far-right groups, the migrant issue is something of a zero-sum game:

One country’s “gain” (by refusing refugees) is necessarily another’s nation’s “loss”.

Ultimately, as national right-wing groups chart their paths forward, few will find their domestic legitimacy bolstered by linking up with other groups on the far right.

Allusions to transnational links complicate matters for most of them.

The history of far-right activism is replete with examples of efforts to develop international links, and their failure.

The reason why far-right populists in Europe do not coordinate more systematically is that most of them are profoundly different, both in policy and style.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The sad truth is that it does not take Steve Bannon to build a strong far right in Europe. The voters are doing his job perfectly well – by not voting, and by supporting nationalist, anti-EU forces in their home countries.

History repeats itself, sadly, so don’t vote with false news spread by social media.

There are more than 40 million Muslims and 1.6 million Jews in Europe.

Do they need our votes?

I don’t think they need our votes. They need our kosher stamp.

No country can be forced to take in refugees. Every country has the right to say, ‘We don’t want others coming here.’ But the moment we’re talking about [engaging with parties that talk of] restriction on freedom of religion and racism.

The old world order is going through a lot of turbulence and is in danger of collapsing.

Those who believe in social democratic, green or liberal agendas have become accustomed to viewing far-right populists as automatically anti-EU.

Faced with this ideological flexibility, pro-EU politicians will need to think long and hard about how to protect the EU from those who would misuse it to promote a darker vision of Europe. These right-wing parties should be ostracized.

Make an informed choice rather than a mere expression of frustration with the EU in May.

There’s no steady political weathervane pointing in only one direction.

FOR ME:

OVER THE NEXT TWELVE YEARS WITH ALL OF US TREATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE  THAT IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING IRREVELENT WHY WASTE A VOTE ON A FAR RIGHT OR INDEED FOR THAT MATTER ON A FAR LEFT PARTY WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS A VOTE THAT BRINGS US ALL TOGETHER TO ACT.

The far right has never had the slightest interest in the unknown.

It wants to be told the news it wants to hear, and the atmosphere of mystery it cultivates—like the pseudo-science to which it often gives rise—only exists to provide obvious lies with a vague cover of authority, a comfortably blurred prestige.

The tinder is dry, waiting for a lighted match.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS.

26 Saturday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Twenty-minute read)

The UK is now stepping up plans to trade with the EU under WTO terms in the

the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexiteers can’t see the huge damage that trading on WTO terms would

inflict on the UK economy.  I don’t blame them.

Because we all have a superficial understanding of the rules of WTO.

Because the UK’s terms at the WTO are enshrined in its membership of the

EU.

Why?

Well, you only have to look at what is involved to realise why very few if any understand the operations of WTO.

10-year interim agreement doesn't make sense

One of the WTO’s key rules is that countries should treat their trading partners equally. In WTO jargon this is called most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) — favour one; favour all.

So what is the WTO:

It’s a system of trade agreements, which discipline governments’ trade policies so that international trade is not a free-for-all — the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle.It’s 164 member governments (the present total).

Decisions among those 164 member governments are by consensus, if anyone among them, big or small, cannot accept a decision, there’s no deal.

In fact, each country may have more than one opinion on a particular issue, but let’s not get into that here.

Some people think the WTO Secretariat is the WTO, but strictly speaking, that’s not correct. The Secretariat is a bureaucracy set up to help member governments operate the trading system.

It’s true that the head of the Secretariat is called the Director-General of the WTO, because the WTO is also an international organisation, like the United Nations, UN Environment Programme or the World Bank.

But the WTO DGs are still the servants of the members, a cause of frustration for some of them.

When the negotiators get down to specific subjects such as agriculture or fishing subsidies, those sessions are chaired by ambassadors or other delegates.

It is sufficient to say that Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past when it comes to trading under WTO.

They believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

All of this has long passed, with the result that the Brexiters are now unable to fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy.

While other countries struggle to understand why any nation would willingly leave the world’s largest trading bloc to trade on WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”.

Even if it is obvious to the rest of the world it is not possible to ring up the WTO and say, “Hey, WTO! We’re negotiating a free trade agreement. It may take 10 years. While we’re doing that, we might violate some of your non-discrimination rules.”

The UK is currently a WTO member in its own right.

The issue is it does not have an independent schedule of concessions for the WTO – that’s the menu upon which Britain trades with the rest of the world.

So any future agreement has to contain details, including a plan and timetable for concluding the final agreement. This means that any formal WTO agreement between the UK and EU would obviously mean that the EU would have to be on board too.

In fact, there is no WTO definition of an interim agreement.  No country wants to go through all the above unnecessarily, which is why interim agreements are never notified to the WTO.

In theory, the transition customs union and the Protocol on Northern Ireland / Ireland (the “Backstop”) in the Withdrawal Agreement could qualify as an interim agreement.

The attached non-binding political declaration on the future relationship would not, since it’s not an agreement.

On the face of it, this is about protectionism versus access to markets (or to imports)

So what the problem?

The EU has around 100 tariff quotas:

Tariff quotas have emerged as part of the UK’s need to re-establish itself as a WTO member independent of the EU. In particular, the UK has to separate its own tariff quotas from those of the EU’s, and even if the UK wanted to take this complicated route, there’s little chance the EU would agree.

Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Britain says it will stick to the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member.Seattle protests 1999 Seattle Municipal Archives, (CC BY 2.0)

Britain referendum on the left side was sold on many lies with one stating that the EU is non-democratic.

Is the WTO Democratic?

This is a difficult one:  The short answer is yes and no like the EU.

With the WTO if a country is a dictatorship, then I’m afraid the representative is probably not elected (allowing for multiple shades of grey over what those words actually mean)

In the WTO world no wants to interfere in that, so it just accepts whatever each country’s domestic system produces.

The WTO is definitely democratic among its governments.

The consensus rule means all members have equal say. Voting is available as a fallback, but so far members have rejected that option.

But does it represent the people?

At least as much as any other international organisation. Some governments are democratic; some are not.

One of the problems is that in the Brexit debate people are comparing the WTO with the European Union, which has an elected parliament as well as a council of member states meeting regularly at ministerial or head-of-government level.

The comparison is false.

The EU has a bureaucracy with executive power and a legislature which handles laws.

The WTO’s bureaucracy — the Secretariat — has no executive power.

The closest equivalent to legislation in the WTO is its trade agreements and they are negotiated by all the governments together.

Is it a good idea for the WTO to be run by directly elected representatives?

Only if you believe that directly elected politicians are better at negotiating some pretty technical and complicated trade agreements than our trade ministers and their officials. Or if you believe in world government.

Then we come to the question of Tariffs:

Tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service.

For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.

WTO rules on non-tariff barriers (things like regulations on product safety, rules of origin and quotas) are very limited and not recognised universally.

For example, they do not prevent the EU requiring certification for a whole host of goods and services that originate from outside the EU.

Things such as medicines, product and food safety standards in the UK are currently recognised as EU ones. But when the UK leaves the EU, UK manufacturers may need conformity assessments from the EU recognised body, which is a legal responsibility of an EU importer.

This would mean that UK exports would take longer to reach the EU markets and the UK products would be more expensive in the EU.

Under WTO-only rules, the UK will not be able to have a frictionless border with the EU.

Exporters would have to prove they meet all of the EU’s product standards and regulations, which will be costly and slow down business.

One suggestion has been that the UK scrap all tariffs and regulations for EU imports and continue to accept all products from the EU without checks. But, according to the WTO rules, the UK should extend this approach to products from all other WTO members (it has to treat everyone equally).

WTO rules barely cover trade in services, including financial services and transportation.

So, trading on only the WTO terms would mean no deal on air transport. Access to the EU single aviation market requires airline companies to have their headquarters and majority shareholdings in the EU so airlines would have to relocate.

There is also nothing in WTO rules that would allow UK-based banks to keep trading across the EU. This is why the government has said banks could set up subsidiaries in the EU.

Under WTO terms, the EU should treat the UK like any other country without providing any preferences and applying WTO tariffs – a big change from the zero tariffs that the UK has now.

FINALLY:  Where are we now.

The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner.

In 2017, 44% of UK exports went to the EU and 53% of all UK imports came from the EU.

Both the UK and the EU filed documents in Geneva outlining the terms they will use to trade with the rest of the world after Brexit – and the two submissions are fundamentally different.

A major sticking point for them is the fact that the EU and the UK share a quota system that limits imports of sensitive goods like beef, lamb and sugar.

The UK cannot simply replicate these quotas and has proposed to split them with the EU based on historical trade flows.

All of this means that if and when any country object and ask for a better deal, Britain will be simultaneously be negotiating a trade deal with the EU and the WTO.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE FOR DEMOCRACY IN THIS AGE OF TECHNOLOGY.

15 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Democracy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

These days how is the will of the people manifested and defined? Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of vote"

There are two sides to this argument.

Firstly, social movements and groups devoted to progressive issues and social change use technology to improve democracy.

The other side of the argument is that new advances in technology can be
distinguished from the media that preceded it as it is relatively cheap, easy to use, difficult to control and interactive.

Technology does not only divide the haves and the have-nots but also is important to facilitate democratic transitions by creating a more open political culture.

As a result, there is the problem re-striking a balance between state, market and societal control of IT, where the state and society emphasise the equality of access, while the market emphasises efficient development of technology and production.

As the capabilities of technology increase, so does our dependency on it.

Nowadays, we find yourself looking at our iPhone almost every ten minutes.

So what leverage does technology have on our democratic proceeds or institutions?

Without physical human interaction, we fall subject to potentially losing our sense of real connection. We’ll become desensitized, numb, and oblivious to the social cues that we would have witnessed had only the conversation been made in-person.

Is the democratic system more to do with how the app works?

Is digital technology leading us into a new dark age?

Will it be thanks to technology, politicians are no longer essential to

the formation of organized society?

Look at initiatives like Democracy. Earth, Asgardia, and Artisanopolis are envisioning new forms of society in which the people govern themselves.

These societies could have economies that are powered by Bitcoin, governing documents that are drafted through peer-to-peer networks, and decisions that are recorded via blockchains. They needn’t apply declarations written centuries ago to today’s unique landscape — they can start from the ground up.

These are the technology incubator of a new democracy.

But are technology and democracy compatible?

 Illustrative: A hacker in action. (BeeBright; iStock by Getty Images)

Social media manipulation of elections.

Politics has become far more emotional, as a result of our total

immersion in information at the cost of a more rational view of things.

Voter data mining, online polling, electronic voting booths, and, of course, twitter, facebook and emails.

All these communications have left the door wide open for misinformation to seep into the public consciousness, clouding what was already complicated and leaving many unsure of where to look for the truth…or what the truth even looks like.

Brexit being the current prime example, which is turning into a power struggle camouflaged in democracy called the will of the people.   

The average citizen will need to work even harder to separate fact from fiction on the internet over the course of the next four months of Brexit.

“We the People” online petition.  People no longer need to wait for an issue to bubble over before taking action.

It’s probably too early to reach a conclusion about the correlation between
technology and democracy but it is evident that technology can shape challenges in the political, social, military and economic environment of the political system.

In essence, if democracy is impacted by technology by way of a systematic
the application of knowledge to resources to produce goods and services, it will enhance stability and equality.

Therefore, it can shape challenges in the environment of a democratic political system.

There is no doubting as technology advances, humans will increasingly delegate responsibility to intelligent machines able to make their own decisions.

This entails considering various ways of adjusting the organisational structures that are relevant for economic productivity, political participation and cultural diversity in line with preferred social scenarios; and the cultural.

As far as technology is concerned, any definitive claim whether it is utopian or a Luddite when it comes to democracy can only succumb to technological
determinism.

Finally, the technology could in future greatly benefit society if its advancement is harmonious with national democratic imperatives and if it is intended to serve the needs of the people.

The goal for the future will be to somehow bridge the theoretical possibilities
with technological capability.

This involves creating information technologies that reduce the threat and
vulnerabilities and encourage environmentally sustainable applications of IT.

The most obvious problem is that information and communication technology companies will have little incentive to develop new products to meet the needs of people who cannot use or afford their existing services.

Thankfully, we have no shortage of ways to discuss the topic.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL LOST OUR HEADS OR IS IT THAT VERY FEW OF US GIVE A SHIT ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

28 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, Facebook, Fake News., Freedom, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

This post has many contradictions, as I am delving into an area with so many unknowns that are developing as we read.

You could say that there many more pressing problems in the world than technological development which will always be far beyond our ability to respond to it in any democratic manner.    Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

If we are to place our trust in artificial intelligence, it is going to require a high degree of transparency.

As citizens, we must know how and in which context our data is used, and we must feel confident that data storage is carried out in a safe and secure manner.

We should also have insight into the basis on which artificial intelligence acts, so that we may better understand the implications and dilemmas we will have to relate to in the future. Here, it is crucial that we handle the ethical dilemmas jointly – and contribute to the creation of the common framework for a world not owned by Apple. Microsoft etc.

But how do we create a wide interest in contributing?

How do we ensure that it is not just the technologically initiated who create the framework on behalf of society as a whole?

The next century beginning on January 1, 2101.

It might seem miles away and most if not all of us will have departed this world, long before it arrives, however – if we want Liberal democracy to survive or for that matter, the earth itself we need to put aside our smartphones and start defending our common values.

To do this it is important to remember the past and to keep it in mind so that as individuals and as a society we can grow and flourish.

As Emersons said:

“Society is a joint stock company in which the members agree for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. ”

The current age with its AI technology is far from achieving this rather with Machine learning and Data mining and algorithms it is just the beginning of undermining our own social foundation.

The problem is the opacity of the power of the algorithms, which means that it isn’t easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of the powers that are creating a parallel form of governing alongside the more familiar tools of legislation and policy- setting.

In the coming years, vast fields of human life will be governed by digital code both invisible and unintelligible to human beings with significant political power placed beyond individual resistance and legal challenge.

Soon it will not be easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of greed and inequality.

Once we all have digital ID numbers, it will become impossible to challenge one’s designation.

We are starting to see the use algorithms not only in the assisting of the election of idiots like D Trump but we are allowing Social media platforms to rip apart the institutions that are supposed to stabilise our political volatile world.

Why is this happing?  Because our current democratic world is not working.

It seems unwilling to deal with the problems facing earth while its citizens are being gerrymandered by technology into populist short-term thinking.

As we watch the decline of mainstream parties the role of money in politics that once shaped government is no longer effective. For the last few decades, we see countries driven by growth at all costs with parties and governments responsive primarily to elites or narrow groups of voters rather than broad cross-sections of the population.

If we stopped and properly analyzed that past we would realize that our economy was strongest not when untethered free market capitalism was free to reign but when our government had pushed for massive social reforms which “artificially” (as some would say) supported the lower and middle class.

It was this, not the free market which allowed for Capitalism for profit to reign supreme in the past and if we are to ignore that then we can never hope to move forwards for we will forever be stuck solving the problems of the past not to mention the future.

The result is that citizens feel disregarded and disempowered with little or no respect for politicians that show a tumbling and marked deterioration in their capacity to inspire or the power they can exert in a shrinking sphere of influence due to social media.

I say: by ignoring the past we pass up valuable opportunities to learn more about what should be done to solve problems now.

This is the basis for historic achievements such as human rights and the rule of law, however, we on the threshold of not be able to reconcile these rights with the revolution promised by the fourth Industrial revolution.

Due to lack of access to data and any world regulations as to what can be done with data, there is a high probability that data collection collected on one pretext will be used entirely for a different purpose.

Take Denmark which is now distributing benefits by using algorithms that are undermining its democracy. They don’t fully appreciate the risks involved in enhancing the welfare state through AI applications.

Liberalism is the premise of the belief that coercive powers of public authorities should use in service of individuals freedom and that they should be constrained by laws controlling their scope, limits, and discretion.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Therefore, new systemic set-ups are required that can support the agility needed in a digital age.

The fourth industrial revolution does not stop just because we are not ready
to support it.

We must instead get ready. Get ready for a time of driverless cars and artificial intelligence that complements us as human beings, and augmented reality that connects the digital world with our physical one.

But actual legislation is difficult to imagine at the present time because we
simply cannot regulate something of which we do not know the extent… The fear is that we are doing something wrong because the market is so volatile and immature.

So for the moment instead of legislation, we should be putting in place policy frameworks and certifications as a means of regulating the area:

Accountability is a basic aspect when working on new technology of which we do not yet know the extent, the consequences or the full potential.

Accountability for technological development implies that we discuss solutions,
opportunities and engage in the conflicts and disagreements that will naturally follow in the aftermath – even if we do not know the destination of our train.

Others emphasize the fact that the accountability consists of people having control of the technology, and technology acts on the data fed to it. In other words, people are very much responsible for data being of the right quality to avoid so-called bias (distortions) in data and, thus, in the recommendations that artificial intelligence may contribute in what potentials may be released and of what challenges we should be aware of.

Thus, the goal has not been to identify a final result or a single truth that everyone may rally around.

Because the truth is that there are many attitudes toward artificial intelligence.

From how the area should be anchored politically to how to ensure that everyone enjoys the benefits of the technological development and what barriers may exist to this development.

From how the savings arising from increased automation and increased use of artificial intelligence are used to create value for the citizens:

From how to quickly decide on specific projects and ensuring rapid implementation?

Although EU legislation may be relevant, technology is a cross-border issue so international guidelines are equally important as many global companies are located in the US and China.

Finally, we have the problem of engagement.

None of us like our forefathers and all that came before them have any idea what the world is going to be like in the future but addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mind space of the youngest generation will formulate its foundations. 

The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults.

All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being. People’s cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, creativity, reflection, and mental resilience.

The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps.

The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness.

We’ve reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people’s real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries – energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership.

Some of these technologies are already operating without a person’s knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms.

So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further. Facebook and Twitter have become heavily ingrained in the process of democracy their digital footprint is not limited to a readership or viewing area.

We will see a reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices.

The society-wide effects of ‘continuous partial attention’ and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs.

Digital life will take people’s privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds.

Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes.

Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing – which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships – it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being.

This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms.

You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them.

At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface – owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she’s designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being.

It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies will be beneficial to mankind other than profit for profit sake. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people’s well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design.

Proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that it is not being switched off – not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.

The technological path we’re on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans has to be challenged NOW not in the future.

Technology will be needed if we are to develop beyond a one plant species.

Conditions of modern life could be driving changes in the makeup of our genes. Our bodies and our brains may not be the same as those of our descendants.

Technology may well put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection with evolution becoming purely cultural.

This gives us good grounds for thinking that evolution (whether biological, memetic or technological) will continue to lead in desirable directions.

There is no genetic or evolutionary reason that we could not still be around to watch the sun die. Unlike ageing, extinction does not appear to be genetically programmed into any species.

Meanwhile there is gradual progress in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and eventually, it will become possible to isolate individual cognitive modules and connect them up to modules from other uploaded minds…

Modules that conform to a common standard would be better able to communicate and cooperate with other modules and would, therefore, be economically more productive, creating pressure for standardization…

I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience.

The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound.

There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a ‘crack-phone.

There might be no niche for mental architectures of humankind.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: 2018 HAS BEEN A TURBULENT YEAR BUT ARE WE ON THE CUSP OF SOMETHING MUCH MORE DANGEROUS AND LONG -LASTING IN 2019.

22 Saturday Dec 2018

Posted by in Democracy, European Union.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

We need to get smart about improving our institutional defects.

Why?

Because it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss political opinions openly without being slandered as a racist or a sexist.

Because if we don’t we are looking at a form of unregulated direct democracy run by social media popularism with no long-term thinking.

You might think this is trivial compared to other world problems but if we are to have any chance to address climate change, immigration, inequality, and the like we need stable leadership now more than ever.

It is no wonder if you live in a country where you are mired in poverty and constant violence you could not be blamed for thinking that’s what democracy is.

You wouldn’t want it eighter.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy"

In 2018 saw many elections worldwide where voters vote did not matter- Hungary, Russia, Venezuela. Poland the USA.

More voting does, not = freedom. If you are in any doubt just look at where Venezuela or Hungary are.

So can Democracy be restored or has too much damage been done?

Its worldwide acceptance today that Democracy is the best of imperfect options for managing society.

However, as people realize that democracy can go hand in hand with populism, isolationism, and even racism it strives to balance individual liberty with public order.

What we are witnessing is more and more begging on our TV screens for funds to save everything from whales to homeless people.

While Social Media is encouraging individual self-interest, non-corporation between countries, profit for profit sake, confusion, and downright madness. It is facilitating both pro-democracy and anti-protest, spreading false news and information to bye pass the gatekeeps giving rise to nationalist-populists who don’t seem inclined to prioritize strengthening democracy, their constituencies must at least appreciate having had the democratic opportunity to put them in power.

But have the very widespread democratic aspirations of people around the world declined?

I suspect not, but I am concerned that the structures and processes that enable fulfilment of those aspirations may be eroding and that there is a lack of international leadership in countering that erosion.

The inability in many countries to deliver broadly shared prosperity, the increased distance of the political class from everyday citizens and rampant corruption in many nations will be crucial as democratic and authoritarian leaders alike decide their trajectories.

There are, however, people on the streets yelling for increased equality in income, opportunity, and government efficacy.

These are the concepts at the very heart of well-functioning democracies.

Centrism.

It’s a decidedly wimpy and unexciting word and it often inspires derision as a kind of pallid purgatory for those afraid to take bold action or propound creative political ideas.

Centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

Humans are not infinitely flexible or perfectible. They cannot use reason to transcend fully their basic impulses and prejudices.

Centrism, then, is defined by a number of assumptions and tendencies; it is not defined by policy dogmas.

Civilization is a brilliant achievement, and the centrist wishes to celebrate it. But such a celebration doesn’t require ignoring its flaws or discouraging innovations.

Societies and polities are incredibly complicated and our understanding of the way social systems and human nature interact is excruciatingly limited.

Ideas that require significant harm today to bring about a better tomorrow are particularly pernicious. Uncertainty about the future requires humility and a commitment to order and well-being in the here and now.

Although science cannot solve all social problems, it is the best instrument we have for measuring the success or failure of particular policies.

It is important, therefore, to protect vigilantly free speech and free inquiry so that the best ideas are rigorously debated in the public forum.

Political ideologies tend to blind people to the best policies.

One should not seek a “conservative” answer to poverty or a “liberal” answer to immigration.

Because humans are naturally tribal, factionalism is easy to create and dangerous for a broader cooperative union among dissimilar peoples.

It is useful to be sceptical of human nature in the broad sense but to be charitable to individuals, especially in the domain of public discourse. This charity encourages free and pleasant public debate and discourse; and, all things equal, free debate leads to the best solutions to complicated social problems.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy"

2019 will see an election in the European Union and it is highly unlikely that any political party has a monopoly on truth.

However, Europe must seek the best answer.  to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority, so that the powerful many, cannot trample the few.

Why ?

Because warning signs are flashing red – Democracy is under threat.

THERE MUST BE REFORM NOT PROMISES in order to allow citizens to change previously made decisions.

Perhaps today’s problem resides in the erosion of the power democracies have to comply with this norm or promises. Yet this is a problem connected to the power of the sovereign state, rather than democracy.

The EU must prove to citizens that it can deliver tangible dividends in a consistent, transparent manner.

Democracy derives its attractiveness from its ability to absorb a wide variety of hopes, desires, and fears, which can include the desire to put strong men in power – Hilter

It’s reassuring to think authoritarian governments depart with their leaders.

It’s also wrong.

That government within the EU  are “social contract” between people and their rulers, which can be dissolved if rulers fail to promote the people’s welfare.

It will be its ability or inability to deliver both economically and politically, which will be fueling populism.

It’s not too long ago that the nations of Europe were led by monarchs, who exercised the divine right of kings and owed little or no consideration to the will of their subjects.

Democracy surely never had much appeal for “strongmen” who seem ascendant in various parts of the world.

History is on the side of the oppressed, not their oppressors.

Rising political polarization and populism signal dissatisfaction and if not addressed will divide the public into intolerant communities.

To counter all of this the EU should issue guaranteed peoples Bonds to allow its citizen member to invest in its future.

These bonds would allow its, citizens and businesses, to connect directly with rewards for doing so.

The Funds could be granted by an Independent, total transparent elected EU Citizens Organisation, independent from the EU budget, Commission or Parlement at a fixed rate of repayment into projects that encouraged sustainability, promoting environmental improvements, infrastructure, health, reduced cost of energy etc.

We cannot turn a blind eye to what I call Algorithms Democracy giving political power to the uninformed.

The larger point is either we are capable of self-rule or we are not.

The democratizing and decentralizing of information of the last few decades should improve our ability to engage in political discourse more effectively by loosening controls over who produces or provide information.

If it doesn’t, the fault will lie with ourselves.

It is as much up to us to use that freedom and resource carefully and responsibly, as it was up to the Athenian citizen to listen warily to the smooth-talking orators.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse or like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHEN THIS BRIXIT MAYHEM IS ALL OVER. THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS GALORE AS TO HOW IT ALL HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. ANOTHER FACE BOOK VICTORY.

13 Thursday Dec 2018

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Brexit., Democracy, Facebook, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Facebook is more powerful than a nation-state.

Facebook is in the business of exploiting your data.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the erosion of democracy"

Platforms like Facebook enable people’s data to be used in ways that take power away from voters and give it to data-analyzing campaigners.

Unfortunately, it seems that none of us sees this. We don’t hold media technology firms accountable for degrading our public conversations.

With only months to go before Britain exits the European Union, the English government is in meltdown oblivious to what is happening in the world beyond and how it connects to Britain

All eyes are transfixed on the EU exit sign.

Critically, both for the EU and England it’s what happened on Social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook that will remain the biggest question of all after Brexit.

Both Twitter and Facebook have become a giant funnel not just for dark ads, but for dark money that evades election finance laws and the control of money spent during elections is the very basis of our electoral laws.

If we are now failing to recognise the above we are failing to appreciate how social media is breaking our democracy.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the erosion of democracy"

While we all are all burying our heads in the sand of smartphone it is obvious that Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter are the perfect cover for something far more chilling controlling the expression of public opinion in the political debate.

Although Twitter and Facebook are categorised as social networking services, in fact, they are as different as chalk and cheese. And, of the two, Twitter is more important in one respect: its impact on the arena in which societies discuss their political issues.

Twitter also has the capacity to turn “ordinary” people into broadcasters, a development whose implications we are only just beginning to digest. Yellow Jackets, Brixiters who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

Technologies such as Twitter, which offer real-time tracking of public opinion, are the visible foundations of the Arab Spring, Donald Trump’s election, Brexit and the Yellowjackets.

Democracy and the rule of law are been subverted in plain sight.

If you look at the USA Twitter is the de facto newswire for the planet, which means that a company that can regulate expressions of opinion might be very powerful indeed.

And that should make us nervous.

So is there anything that can be done?

No much unless we pass laws regulating these platforms and make them responsible for what is posted on their platforms.

One of the most striking aspects of the epoch-making Brexit is (as with the Syrian War the Iraq, and Yemen war) is the way many MPs cited the emailed opposition of their constituents to armed intervention as a reason for voting against the proposed action.

Thus, it is evident that we are all increasingly embracing the importance of social media and its value in modern human communication.

However, this trend can only be assumed as the beginning of an envisioned well connected and digital adept world.

So recent history has evidenced that Social Media is a potent tool with transformational abilities to shape and influence the way in which people communicate and share information.

One of the qualities that define Social Media is its ability to transcend beyond borders, without observing spatial distance that exists between and amongst the geographies.

In addition, social media connects individuals on a semi-personal level, while allowing instantaneous feedback and dialogue.

But, this does not rule out the possible abuse of such innocent yet powerful platforms of communications.

Different sectors ranging from government to business also embeds and encourages the embracement of social media platforms into their processes in order to enhance organisational efficiency.

We might be gradually realising the significance of social media for democratic benefits that it is seen as an agent of public discourse and a driver of public participation and freedom of speech amid political and democratic uncertainty.

It might be rising the political and democratic consciousness but the power of social media in the political and democratic dispensation cannot be underestimated.

Is social media damaging democracy? Yes, but we can also use social media to save democracy.

We have to stop governments from colluding with an omniscient surveillance superpower but use it as their eyes to see the inequalities we all live in.

THERE IS NOT THE TIME FOR COUNTRIES TO BE MOVING TO ID ISOLATION IF WE ARE TO HARNESS TECHNOLOGY TO SERVE THE WORLD.

Just as there is nothing inevitable about democratic survival, neither is the demise of democracy guaranteed.

These changes are especially likely to go unnoticed when popularly elected leaders twist laws to their advantage or frame attacks on checks and balances as populist reforms limiting the power of elites.

Civil society must reclaim its rightful place by demanding genuine participation in governance, including decisions on peace initiatives, environmental protection and trade and investment agreements.

A large part of humanity still doesn’t have it. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the erosion of democracy"

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin of the cloud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: IT’S NOW OR NEVER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

11 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, Evolution, Facebook, Google, Humanity., Modern day life., Privatization, Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

This is not a spectator sport:

It can be nearly impossible to credibly predict all the positive possibilities and negative implications for how we live, work, govern, and organize arising from the deployment of AI.

The fact that we are deeply uncertain about how technologies will evolve in the years and decades ahead makes human rights due diligence of AI very challenging. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of human rights abuse"

The fact that the rapid development of AI raises challenges for securing access to remedy, which can be especially challenging when humans often can’t cognitively understand how a decision is made by AI systems:

The fact that Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is increasingly being used by businesses, governments, and other institutions to augment many fields of human endeavor.

The fact that Methodologies for implementing respect for human rights may need to integrate strategic tools such as strategic foresight, futures thinking, and scenario planning.

The fact that the global “platformization” of content (i.e., the rise of Video on Demand and online streaming platforms) shows us that guarantees of people’s access to the culture of their selection may now become beholden to digital intermediaries.

Proponents believe that the further development of AI creates new opportunities in health, education, and transportation, will generate wealth and strengthen economies and can be used to solve pressing social issues. However, the rapid growth of AI raises important questions about whether our current policies, legal systems, business due diligence practices, and methods to protect rights are fit for purpose.

The significant expansion of data collected and analyzed may also result in increasing the power of companies with ownership over this data and threaten our right to privacy.

HERE ARE A FEW OF PROBLEMS THAT ARE NOT DISCUSSED.

As the digital paradigm evolves, the pathway for human rights is likely to become more complicated, making appropriate regulation more important than ever. The realization of ESCR and the right to development centers on data democracies that are accountable.

Global policy discourses and frameworks around data have skewed the digital innovation tide in favor of developed countries… the global “platformization” of content… shows us that guarantees of people’s access to the culture of their selection may now become beholden to digital intermediaries.

Data and technological arrangements in the global South and North worryingly point to a wholesale private capture and consolidation of critical data regimes in the developing world: trade, agriculture, health, and education.

Not only does this leave citizens in developing countries vulnerable to acute privacy violations, but it also bears decisively on their economic, social and cultural rights (ESCRs). For example, in India, the acquisition of homegrown successes, such as Wal-Mart’s purchase of the domestic e-commerce unicorn, Flipkart, poses very serious outcomes for the livelihoods of small producers and traders.

Algorithm-based decision-making by companies could also perpetuate human bias and result in discriminatory outcomes, as they already have in some cases.

An algorithm is meant to complement and not necessarily displace human discernment, it is not hard to imagine a future where humanitarian assistance to refugees becomes predicated on their (technology proven) ability to viably assimilate and contribute to their host economies.

Could the trade-off for a smoother resettlement process be the exclusion of those that the algorithm will one day write off as “inadmissible” and “unsolvable”?

Technology-based decision-making also raises important questions on how the right to development will be realized.

Artificial intelligence is undermining society by promising unimaginable benefits without any intervention from governments or other world organizations.

As always we humans react to crises when it’s too late.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of human rights abuse"

Governments must create policies for effective data sharing between governments and the private sector for sectors that are of critical social importance.

More importantly, governments must create a data commons with independent oversight.

For example:

The municipality of Curitiba in Brazil, for instance, has taken the lead in passing local legislation that mandates anonymized data sharing between the local government and the ride aggregator Uber. The intention is to tap into Uber’s large and rich data sets towards better city planning and traffic management outcomes.

Governments must invest in the idea of “data as a public good” so it can work to enhance human rights.

Although nascent, experiments with models for managing big data repositories are increasing.  Such repositories can encourage domestically led innovation, with local start-ups and public agencies taking the lead in developing appropriate AI-based solutions for social problems.

These are pressing policy challenges, and such prediction models need to be closely and continuously tracked for possible social distortions and subject to institutional audit. The biases in AI is often the bias of humans. People will not rely on technology they do not trust.

Society needs to come together to consider these questions, explore solutions, and deploy AI that puts people first, protects human rights, and deserves the public’s trust.

Breakthroughs in technology—including artificial intelligence—can help fulfill the right to development, but digital technologies are not magic bullets; there is a strong role for governance.

The security of digital bits cannot be left to the cloud nor the internet of things, promoted by Amazon, Facebook, and Google with home hubs that can be hacked.

Civil society groups, governments, and others are rightly asking questions regarding the risks to human rights. In this age of global corporate presence and influence, we need to ensure that ordinary people and communities are able to stand up for their rights.

But the danger with artificial intelligence is greater than just our rights.

Everything that makes who we are comes from our brains. Without brain power, we would not have gone from flint arrowheads to the space station.

DESTROY THE BRAIN WITH AI AND WE DESTROY CREATIVITY.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WITH THE FORTHCOMING EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IS IT NOT TIME FOR THE EU COMMISSION TO REXAMINE ITS SELF.

18 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Communication., Democracy, European Commission., European Union., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., The common good., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Six-minute read)

While the UK is wholly focused on Brexit negotiations, yesterday the 12th Sept Jean- Claude Junker gave his state of the Union speech.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of jean claude juncker"

It may have been a thoughtful and reflective speech, accompanied by concrete initiatives on trade, investment screening, cybersecurity, industry, and data IT DID LITTLE TO ADDRESS the wave of populist protest that can yet inflict serious damage on Europe.

The rise of populist or far-right parties in Germany, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, Denmark and elsewhere threaten not only the stability of individual governments, but the cohesion of Europe itself, and its most sacred values of democracy and freedom.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures eu commission"

Already we can see that the EU is practically powerless to resist the erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law in eastern Europe, while the Conte-Salvini administration in Rome promises even more serious trouble on migration and the single currency.

Mr. Juncker recognized these challenges but had few immediate proposals to turn the populist tide nor did he offer much evidence that the commission has all the answers.

These are not times for any European leader to talk airily about further losses of national power and sovereignty. The next commission president need not be a Eurosceptic – an absurd notion anyway – but he or she will need, somehow, to bring Europe closer to its disaffected citizens. The EU is not a sovereign nation. It can’t have a president, nor can it grant citizenship.

It’s only an organization, deluded enough to think it’s a country.

The social balance of the EU and the EU nations is crucial for the EU future. The effects of the economic and financial crisis are still causing great hardship in many parts of Europe.

If the commission is to learn anything from the departure of the UK it must improve the public perception of the Union.

We will and are living in a Union of unemployed people, many of them young people who feel sidelined. Until this situation has changed, it must be the number one concern,  to grant the Uk any agreement that is seeing as better than what exists for its remaining members will put the final nail in the coffin.

The UK is and was a hypocritical member seeking to get benefits for its businesses whilst, all too often, leaving its citizens out of the equation.

Brexit is inevitable. It is much too late to cancel Brexit.

The uncertainty about the future relationship is entirely due to the UK’s clueless incompetence and serial backtracking on previously agreed on things which PM May had SIGNED under.

The Brexit mess is 100% made in the UK.

At a time when and the desire to preserve access to EU capital for its banks, asset managers and insurers, many in the UK at least perceive the Commission’s proposed changes to strengthen rules around third country access as a direct attempt to ensure that the UK does not engage in a regulatory race to the bottom, once outside the EU.

THERE IS NO AGREEMENT TRADE OR OTHERWISE THAT A NEW PRIME MINISTER WILL NOT TRY TO CHANGE.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU IN THE FUTURE"

It will fall to Mr. Juncker’s successor, from next summer, to lead Europe away from its real and present dangers Of falling into the nationalistic fairy traps.

The EU has for way too long been dominated by an international corporate capital much better at international cooperation than the civil society. In Brussels, the corporate business lobby is much better organized than small business, workers unions, and civil society movements.

HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL ON A LEARNING CURVE WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION.

In conclusion:

One of the greatest challenges to the EU is that it does not stand still for long, with social media and the advance of technology in order to stay standing it must involve its citizens with an equal share of its benefits both financial and otherwise.

To give Europeans a working interest in the Union here is a suggestion that could go a long way in achieving an active engagement of its citizens in its future development.

WHY NOT INTRODUCE A EUROPEAN TREASURY BOND.

EVERYONE CAN BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN ITS FUTURE.

20,000 new border guards to police the EU’s Mediterranean borders by 2020 is too late.

THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE JCJ COMMISSION.

All human comments appreciated. All lie clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASK’S: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT AGREE TO.

12 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., Gibraltar and Spain, Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Politics., The common good., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A three-minute read)

My recent Beady Eye post attempted to explain the origins of the Northern Ireland border.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the good friday agreement"

THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Up to the Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland was in effect a one-party state, in which half of the population was routinely discriminated against.

The agreement marked a commitment to “the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone with Britain agreed to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into the law of Northern Ireland.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of The Belfast Agreement, more commonly known as The Good Friday Agreement.

SIGNED ON THE 10th April 1998. It effectively brought an end to The Troubles, which had raged in the region for thirty years. It was widely seen in Britain, as elsewhere, as a significant act of statesmanship, supported by both main parties.

A devolved assembly was established for both sides to govern together and while unionists were assured of their British identity, a united Ireland was acknowledged as a legitimate political goal for Republicans.

As the Irish border is becoming a critical issue in the Brexit negotiations, it now appears at risk.

CONDEMNING THE AGREEMENT TO THE POLITICAL SHREDDER.

Some 71 percent of people in Northern Ireland voted to accept the agreement in a referendum, with the DUP (NOW BRIBING THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO THE TUNE OF 6 BILLION TO REMAIN IN POWER) being the only party to reject it.

The system of power-sharing government it established in Northern Ireland has not functioned for over a year.

However, the collective failure in Northern Ireland will not be blamed just on Brexit nor on the DUP but on the EU if it agrees to any border visible or otherwise.

The harder the border between north and south, the more reckless the UK’s decision to leave the EU will be judged.

A significant amount of direct funding is at stake: the EU provides Northern Ireland with nearly a billion euros a year for agriculture, employment, and projects related to the peace process.

Of course, no one talks about the other border between Gibraltar and Spain where British territory also has a historic claim placed on it by a foreign power, namely Spain.

It will “make the Irish problem look like a picnic”.

96 percent of Gibraltarians voted to Remain in 2016.

Of course there are differences between Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, obviously, based on geography, economics, and history. Gibraltar isn’t in the UK, but as a close overseas dependent territory, it may as well be.

The EU has given Spain a formal veto over Brexit if Madrid is not happy with the Gibraltar dimensions of a Brexit deal. The Irish didn’t get that.

Gibraltar could easily be treated much like other EU microstates such as Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, and Andorra; EU members in all but name, albeit with no formal voting powers.

SO WHY NOT NORTHERN IRELAND?

GIBRALTAR REPRESENTS one tiny strip of land, two vetoes and three governments trying to achieve the impossible WHILE NORTHERN IRELAND REPRESENTS A HISTORICAL DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

Makes you wonder if all this collateral damage TO ALL CONCERNED is worth it.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : Is it time for liquid democracy or what some like to call Direct Democracy.

30 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Communication., Democracy, Facebook, Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Freedom, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Privatization, Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

( A six-minute read)

I AM NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT DEMOCRACY THAT IS FOUND AT THE

BOTTOM OF A BOTTLE OF WHISKY BUT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THAT

MAY HAVE RUN ITS COURSE.

Technology is fundamentally shifting how government works and how it relates to the citizens it ostensibly represents. In the wake of fake news, algorithms operated by business are shaping a world in which earthly government is becoming less and less functional.

Smartphones with their ease of use and constant accessibility are changing our social networks and reshaping our political world.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of direct democracy"

Because Social Media companies, not Governments are launching new policies. We need to take a more critical look at the role of social media in society.

The biggest challenge is technology that could potentially help end corruption and lobbying, allow people to delegate votes to trusted friends rather than politicians, and empower experts in a field to meaningfully impact policy cannot be achieved while the content of social media has no legal means of ensuring transparency or verification of authenticity prior to any posting.

WHILE THIS STATE REMAINS  Representative democracy may have run its course.

Social Media companies like Facebook, Twitter, U Tube and their like are now shaping a world in which earthly government is becoming inoperative. 

SO HOW MIGHT SOCIAL MEDIA – ALGORITHMS – AI – MACHINE LEARNING – ALTER THE CAPACITY OF CITIZENS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES?

As unprecedented numbers of people channel their political energy through this medium, it’s now being used in unforeseen ways with societal repercussions that were never anticipated.

We should all be very wary news feeds which are being personalized.

ONE OF THE GREATEST PROBLEMS for the future is the worldwide existing inequality in access to new communication technologies. It threatens to aggravate existing social inequalities.

How does social media influence a democratic society? 

By allowing us to create our very own feeds and essentially live in them.

By allowing algorithms to design communication packages just for individuals with each component full chosen in advance.

By allowing advertising without checking their source of purchase.

By allowing petitions to be voted on.

By allowing algorithms to create what’s called polarization, or an information cocoon.

By allowing another communication channel between voters and politicians.

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad. At its best, it allows us to express ourselves and take action. At its worst, it allows people to spread misinformation and corrode democracy.

One way or the other we are arriving rapidly to a crossroads whether we want true freedom of choice or short-term data-driven decisions to rule the roost.

If we can bank online, we can vote online.

We can now publish online, shout online, share music and ideas online, expose new knowledge online, regroup and connect online, bank online. The only thing we still can’t do online is voting on our own laws. No, instead we’re still living under a bizarre psycho-political industrial-era system that wants us to believe we’re represented by elected officials.

The structure of a direct democracy government is simple, and yet profound, giving rise to several questions that need a wide-reaching topic for debate.

SUCH AS.

The people have the final say in every decision that the government makes. That is because, in this government structure, the people are the government.

This can only work if everyone is involved in the voting process in some way. WHICH IS TOTALLY UNWORKABLE. 

WHO WANTS MOB RULE.

Voters cannot authentically decide a course of action to take if they are not presented with complete and accurate information. This structure of government requires that all citizens be given the same information and shared within an equal time frame.

It could also allow a majority of people to oppress certain groups in a harmful manner.

IT CAN ONLY WORK IN THE VILLAGE HALL.

Once we count on AI to decide what we do our concept of life will have to change.

Democratic elections and free markets might cease to make any sense, as with most art and religions.

Can parliaments and political parties overcome the challenges?

At the moment it does not seem so. Technological disruption is not even a leading item on the political agenda.

Google and Twitter are attention merchants. They capture our attention and resell it to advertisers. We are becoming their product.

Governments need to nationalize our data.

It is now or never that regulate the ownership of data if we don’t want to end up living in a digital dictatorship.

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of direct democracy"

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.