At the moment, the crucial matter in UK politics is Brexit or the referendum within the next couple of months that will decide whether Britain will be inside or outside Europe. Currently it is attracting opposite views. David Cameron, Prime Minister, comes on TV frequently to caution compatriots of the folly of leaving the European Union (EU). In turn, he was cautioned by François Hollande, French President, that, were Britain to jump ship, France may, in effect, throw open its Calais refugee camp that incarcerates would-be African and West Asian immigrants to the UK thus enabling them to swim across the English Channel to find jobs.
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and prime ministerial hopeful, is vocal about favouring Brexit though he should well know that few Britons want the jobs that East Europeans take up in the UK. But Mr Johnson's strategy has brought him up in the queue to succeed Mr Cameron. He knows that Britons do not like to be directed from Brussels by Eurocrats. After all, "Rule Britannia rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves." (A tabloid slipped out a titbit, true or not, that Her Highness is in favour of Brexit). Those in favour seem at peace ignoring the benefits of being in the EU-guaranteed exports of British products and continuous import of cheap farm and other labour from Eastern Europe that keep the wheel of British productivity going as service sector and farm employers insist. British youth by and large consider such jobs to be menial. They seem willing to remain jobless what with mindless state subsidies. When visiting the UK, a good anthropology pill is to watch any episode of the Jeremy Kyle Show-morning, afternoon or evening, so popular is this show presenting family encounters that test the DNA of absconding young jobless fathers.
Also Read
The second source of discomfort in London was the anticipation that George Osborne, UK Chancellor (finance minister), would present a terrible Budget to Parliament on March 16. They had reason for fear. Earlier, he had attempted to cut back pensions when retirees cut him down. Sad that no Indian economist or bureaucrat seemed to have informed Finance Minister Arun Jaitley of the English calamity on pension reform. If the FM had been informed, he could have avoided the introduction of, and quick retreat from, his own pension reform in its presented form. That is why it is important to reconsider the Direct Tax Code in full once again, rather than dismissing it. But that is a separate story. FM has also adhered to his fiscal deficit number as has the Chancellor arduously, a fiscal option I myself had earlier praised on paper. But a point fiscal deficit cannot be a magic bullet reflecting the receding British economic climate or the deplorable state of Indian farmers. Economic conditions have changed. Whether virtue has become obstinacy becomes a legitimate question.
But there were also good lessons from the Chancellor's March 16 Budget. London barely took notice of the announcement to reduce the headline corporate tax rate from the prevailing 20 per cent (recently reduced from 28) to, hold your breath, 17 per cent in 2020. The boredom probably reflects pre-Budget stakeholder discussions of intended policy changes revealing the maturity of all parties affected by tax. Also uncelebrated were announced road maps to reduce standard deductions of income tax through 2017 or lower tax on small businesses from 2017. The Budget contained many more early announcements for India to glare at.
It is not possible to close a discussion on Europe without lamenting the tragedy of Shakespearean proportions that Angela Merkel, German Chancellor (head of government), is facing. Caught unawares by the intensity of voter derision in Germany's March regional elections, her party lost considerable ground while she remained unmoved from keeping German borders open for refugees even as her competitors promised to build virtual walls. Promising easier EU accession to a conservative regime such as Recep Erdogan's if he stopped the flow of refugees from Turkey also seemed ill-conceived. It is improbable that her European colleagues will support her when they have consistently revealed their bias against Turkey's accession even with earlier pro-Western Turkish regimes. Ms Merkel had demonstrated a rare combination of being likeable and being able to yield results. It is sad to see her in dire straits now.
Finally, a third source of English discomfiture was the question, would a Presidential system be better (I supposed such as in the Unites States). I raised the proverbial alarm expected from a foreigner, what would happen to the constitutional monarchy? It was politely set aside. Hence US developments call attention. Shocked are speaking Americans of the ongoing Presidential campaign as to who among Republicans is so disgruntled as to produce a surging majority for Donald Trump. Is it too surprising though when Americans voted in George W Bush for a second term and, for that matter, even Barack Obama could win a second term. That Mr Obama ascended immediately after Mr Bush could be perceived as anti-incumbency. But as argued, Americans often vote in second term Presidents and may even vote for third terms (Franklin Roosevelt) if that were still allowed. And the current or past Congress, the legislative branch of the US government, has refused to work with Mr Obama. This again provides good reason for India not to blindly praise Presidential systems for it would be a road merely from one logjam to another.