Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Kosovo independence

The newly-declared independence of Kosovo is likely to have far-reaching and possibly dangerous repercussions.

The country was for several hundred years Serbian and Christian. It fell into the orbit of the Ottoman empire in 1389, following the defeat at the Battle of Kosovo. After this came centuries of oppression and islamicisation. In fact, the spread of the Ottoman empire did not end until 1683, when the Turkish armies who were besieging Vienna were defeated by armies led by the Polish King King John III Sobieski, who successfully attacked from the high ground above Vienna. The defeat of the Ottomans led to the rise of the Austro-Hungarian empire as a Balkan power, ending with the events of 1914 and after.

The politics of the Balkans remains in essence what it was in 1914. The Catholic Croatians look to the west, whilst the Orthodox Serbs see Russia as their protector. The apparently successful attempt to split off a Islamicised part of Serbia was inevitably going to arouse anger in Serbia, and hence in Russia.

It is a mistake for EU countries to recognise this new state and the consequences of doing could unfold unpleasantly.

The whole way in which the dismemberment of Yugoslavia was handled was wrong. There is no reason in principal why people with linguistic and religious differences have to divide themeselves into independent nation states. Some kind of federal solution based on the Swiss model might have had a chance of working. Instead of just recognising states as they managed to break loose, the EU should have used its influence to get the disputing parties round a table so that as many people was possible got what they wanted.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...