After World War II, the international community came together to build a shared future. Now, it must do so again. Owing to the slow and uneven recovery in the decade since the global financial crisis, a substantial part of society has become disaffected and embittered, not only with politics and politicians, but also with globalization and the entire economic system it underpins. In an era of widespread insecurity and frustration, populism has become increasingly attractive as an alternative to the status quo.

But populist discourse elides – and often confounds – the substantive distinctions between two concepts: globalization and globalism. Globalization is a phenomenon driven by technology and the movement of ideas, people, and goods. Globalism is an ideology that prioritizes the neoliberal global order over national interests. Nobody can deny that we are living in a globalized world. But whether all of our policies should be “globalist” is highly debatable.

After all, this moment of crisis has raised important questions about our global-governance architecture. With more and more voters demanding to “take back control” from “global forces,” the challenge is to restore sovereignty in a world that requires cooperation. Rather than closing off economies through protectionism and nationalist politics, we must forge a new social compact between citizens and their leaders, so that everyone feels secure enough at home to remain open to the world at large. Failing that, the ongoing disintegration of our social fabric could ultimately lead to the collapse of democracy.

Moreover, the challenges associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) are coinciding with the rapid emergence of ecological constraints, the advent of an increasingly multipolar international order, and rising inequality. These integrated developments are ushering in a new era of globalization. Whether it will improve the human condition will depend on whether corporate, local, national, and international governance can adapt in time.

Meanwhile, a new framework for global public-private cooperation has been taking shape. Public-private cooperation is about harnessing the private sector and open markets to drive economic growth for the public good, with environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness always in mind. But to determine the public good, we first must identify the root causes of inequality.

For example, while open markets and increased competition certainly produce winners and losers in the international arena, they may be having an even more pronounced effect on inequality at the national level. Moreover, the growing divide between the precariat and the privileged is being reinforced by 4IR business models, which often derive rents from owning capital or intellectual property.

Closing that divide requires us to recognize that we are living in a new type of innovation-driven economy, and that new global norms, standards, policies, and conventions are needed to safeguard the public trust. The new economy has already disrupted and recombined countless industries, and dislocated millions of workers. It is dematerializing production, by increasing the knowledge intensity of value creation. It is heightening competition within domestic product, capital, and labor markets, as well as among countries adopting different trade and investment strategies. And it is fueling distrust, particularly of technology companies and their stewardship of our data.

Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

The unprecedented pace of technological change means that our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy – just to name a few – will be completely transformed. Managing that change will require not just new frameworks for national and multinational cooperation, but also a new model of education, complete with targeted programs for teaching workers new skills. With advances in robotics and artificial intelligence in the context of aging societies, we will have to move from a narrative of production and consumption toward one of sharing and caring.

Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it. Clinging to an outdated mindset and tinkering with our existing processes and institutions will not do. Rather, we need to redesign them from the ground up, so that we can capitalize on the new opportunities that await us, while avoiding the kind of disruptions that we are witnessing today.

As we develop a new approach to the new economy, we must remember that we are not playing a zero-sum game. This is not a matter of free trade or protectionism, technology or jobs, immigration or protecting citizens, and growth or equality. Those are all false dichotomies, which we can avoid by developing policies that favor “and” over “or,” allowing all sets of interests to be pursued in parallel.

To be sure, pessimists will argue that political conditions are standing in the way of a productive global dialogue about Globalization 4.0 and the new economy. But realists will use the current moment to explore the gaps in the present system, and to identify the requirements for a future approach. And optimists will hold out hope that future-oriented stakeholders will create a community of shared interest and, ultimately, shared purpose.

Eurosceptic Conservative MPs will still vote down the government’s Brexit deal even if Theresa May negotiates an exit clause from the Irish backstop, the former minister Steve Baker has insisted.

May’s cabinet has been locked in a bitter internal wrangle about whether, and how, the government could extricate itself from the backstop, with some ministers concerned her plans could leave the UK in a permanent limbo.

The prime minister hopes to win the backing of her ministers for a draft withdrawal agreement at a special cabinet meeting likely to take place early next week.

But Baker, a leading figure in the backbench European Research Group (ERG), said Conservative MPs would be closely scrutinising the accompanying political declaration setting out the framework for the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU27.

“In the end, it’s not really about the backstop,” he said. “The tearing frustration is that the UK has been negotiating with itself.

“Many of us have long believed that the row over the backstop is at least partly confected in order to have an orchestrated breakthrough”.

In the letter May said she would never allow a divide between the province and Britain “to come into force”. The Times said this had been interpreted by the DUP as a sign that the clause will be inserted into the legally binding agreement.

May relies on the support of the DUP’s 10 MPs for her Commons majority, votes that may become crucial as she attempts to get a deal through parliament. However, Foster told the Times that May’s letter “raises alarm bells for those who value the integrity of our precious union and for those who want a proper Brexit for the whole of the UK”.

Baker said that he and his pro-leave colleagues would focus their attention on the declaration. “Conservative MPs expect to get some commitment for the money. The overwhelming attitude of Conservative MPs is that paying £39bn for nothing is totally unacceptable,” he said.

The government hopes it can win over Tory sceptics and some Labour MPs with firm reassurances that the Irish backstop will not be indefinite.

But Baker said few would be convinced. If the deal is voted down, he predicted there would be a moment of “profound political crisis”, during which Eurosceptic Tory MPs would be able to shift the government’s negotiating stance towards a looser future relationship with the EU.

-//-

Downing Street refuses to be drawn on any specific timetable, but both sides appear poised for a breakthrough:

Theresa May is likely to convene a special cabinet meeting on Monday. Ministers would be asked to sign up to her negotiating position, including on the Irish backstop, backed by legal advice from the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox.

Dominic Raab would then travel to Brussels to meet Barnier, whom the government hopes would conclude that enough progress had been made to convene a special Brexit summit at the end of this month.

The government would publish the draft withdrawal agreement and the outline of the political declaration on a future trading relationship, perhaps as soon as next Wednesday, for MPs to scrutinise.

May would then pour all the government’s energy into selling the deal to sceptical MPs on all sides of the Commons, in the run-up to the meaningful vote, which would probably take place in early December.

If cabinet cannot agree, or Barnier decides insufficient progress has been made, there will not be a November summit, a final decision will be delayed until December, and MPs could find themselves voting on the deal just days before Christmas.

You can read the entire article here: Tory Brexiters planning to reject deal even with backstop exit clause

Source: Guardian

So today it is time for a journey to Stockholm for meetings.

I used to work in the city and it was a great time. When in Customs I worked in Headquarters for eleven years. Fist at Skeppsbron in Gamla Stan (Old town) and later at Alströmergatan 39, Kungsholmen. These were great times.