FAQ — Tell Me More
1. Does adopting Simpol mean losing my freedom to vote as I choose?
No. The Simpol Adoption wording states:
“I pledge to vote in future national elections for ANY political party or candidate – within reason – that has Pledged to implement Simpol alongside other governments, or I will encourage my preferred party to sign the Pledge to implement Simpol.”
In the wording, you will see that you are pledging to vote in future elections for any politician within reason who has pledged to implement Simpol alongside other governments. “Within reason” means that, even if a politician or party has signed the Simpol Pledge, it still remains up to you to decide whether you feel that politician or party is worthy of receiving your vote.
If you have a strong preference for a particular political party, your Adoption of Simpol can alternatively signify your desire for your party to sign the Simpol Pledge. So Adopting Simpol in no way compromises your freedom to vote as you wish; nor does it disallow you from preferring a particular party. But it does indicate very clearly to politicians that you will be giving very strong preference at future national elections to those politicians or parties that support it. Meanwhile, politicians who have not yet signed the Pledge to implement Simpol will know what they have to do if they want a chance of gaining your vote and the votes of other Simpol Adopters. In this way, Adopters are providing a strong electoral incentive to politicians from all parties to sign the Simpol Pledge.
Far from curtailing your voting freedom, Simpol brings real voting power back to the people! By Adopting Simpol, your vote is not only re-empowered at national level, its power is extended to the global level. Simpol offers you perhaps the first, genuine form of global electoral politics.
Many politicians support Simpol and have signed the pledge to implement the policies under development alongside other governments because they see the merits of the strategy. Simultaneous implementation offers the only logical way of solving global problems without any nation risking its international competitiveness and the health of its economy. By signing the Simpol Pledge, politicians show that they appreciate that lasting solutions to global problems can only be achieved through co-operation between nation states, with the backing of citizens.
Since Simpol is to be implemented only when all or sufficient nations have signed up to it, politicians who support it risk nothing because they can continue to implement their current party policies until the date for Simpol’s implementation arrives. When sufficient governments have Pledged to implement Simpol, implementation proceeds and the nature of global politics changes. Those politicians and parties who have already given their support to Simpol will be better placed for the new reality.
Politicians who sign the Pledge also attract the votes of Simpol Adopters; votes that could make all the difference between winning or losing their parliamentary seat. Which is good news for them and for their party.
So, signing the Simpol Pledge provides politicians both with a political and an electoral advantage over politicians who do not yet support it: for all politicians, supporting Simpol is a Win-Win!
Please click on the links if you are an MP or an MP Candidate and you require a Simpol Pledge Form.
The range of policy measures that Simpol will consist of have not yet been decided for two very good reasons:
Firstly, if Simpol’s policy content had already been decided, by the time the implementation for Simpol became possible, those measures might very likely be out of date.
Secondly, the policy content of Simpol is to be formulated, or consented to, by citizens who have adopted Simpol. So if the policy content were already decided, citizens who adopt Simpol in the future would be denied the opportunity of having their say. An important principle of Simpol is that the policies are discussed, developed and approved by Adopters around the world. In this way, Adopters in developing countries have as much right to participate as those in richer countries. In practical terms the systems still need to be developed to make that a reality and it would be against the democratic principles of Simpol if those in rich countries with better access to channels of communication rushed ahead to settle policies.
Because Simpol’s policy content is not yet set, when you Adopt Simpol you do so only provisionally and have the opportunity, through your National Simpol Organisation, to participate, if you wish, in the process of policy-making.
In this way, your commitment to give strong voting preference to politicians who have signed the Simpol Pledge takes full force immediately, so building political support for Simpol, but your commitment to the policy content of Simpol remains only provisional while the democratic process of formulating its measures continues in parallel.
ISPO’s Founding Declaration also states: “When a party in power or a national government has Pledged to implement Simpol, it will be required, with the consent of its citizens, to deliver on that Pledge when the governments of every other country (or of a sufficient number of other countries) have also Pledged to do so.”
This means that when the time comes to implement Simpol all citizens, not just Adopters, will be asked to give their consent.
For more information on the kind of policies Simpol could consist of, go to Peoples’ Policy.
It is important to remember that global policies are being set and implemented at present. They determine global trading and financial systems. But they are developed principally by rich countries which enforce their will on less powerful nations. In nearly all countries the lobbying power of international finance has arguably more influence on decisions made by governments than it’s voters. Furthermore, the threat of disinvestment that all nations face if they become “uncompetitive” ensures that the policies implemented put economic interests before all others. Similarly, global policies are being developed and implemented to address problems such as climate change. But again, the need of all nations to maintain their international competitiveness means the policies are not up to the task.
So global policies are, in themselves, nothing new. They are already being formed, but in a way that protects powerful vested interests at the expense of people and the planet.
Given the competition between nation states to attract jobs and investment, the key question, then, is whether introducing the policies that are really necessary to solve global problems will be more likely to occur through the current approach or through the Simpol approach? How realistic is it, after all, to expect a single or a restricted group of nations to unilaterally implement policies which are likely to cause it to become uncompetitive and likely to incur the immediate and potentially catastrophic wrath of global financial markets? The lack of progress made through conventional political approaches suggests it is highly unlikely.
With Simpol, on the other hand, simultaneous implementation removes the key fear of nations, businesses and citizens that they might lose out if their nation tried to act alone, so removing the barriers that prevent agreement on really decisive action. Also, with Simpol, citizens themselves drive the process. Through their Adoption of Simpol, they have the means to make it in the vital electoral interests of politicians to support it, while making it potentially disastrous for them if they don’t. In this way, citizens – not politicians – determine both the policy content of Simpol and how quickly politicians are driven to support it, and implement it.
Imagine a point in time in the future when the many thousands or millions of people who make up the global justice movement had Adopted Simpol and the governments of the EU, the USA, Japan and some developing countries had been driven to sign the Simpol Pledge, the prospect of all or virtually all other countries falling into line seems not that hard to imagine. It is likely that while some governments support Simpol because of the electoral pressure of Adopters, others will be committed in principle and will encourage other governments to give their support, so moving the world closer to implementation.
As the world economic, social and environmental predicament worsens over the coming years, as regrettably seems inevitable, so the pressure on politicians and businesses to support the Simpol approach increases. Although Simpol may today appear to global elites as thoroughly undesirable, it may, when circumstances become truly dire, appear as very desirable indeed. Because when a continuance of the status quo seems likely only to lead to disaster, for politicians and corporate interests to contemplate not co-operating to support the implementation of Simpol may by then have become unthinkable and not in their best interests – not an option. By that time, therefore, it would potentially have become in virtually everyone’s best interests to cooperate in implementing Simpol.
Firstly, remember that politicians are not required to actually implement Simpol until all or sufficient nations have signed the Pledge, so there is really nothing for them to go back on until the date for implementation actually arrived. Remember, also, that those who had signed the Pledge for cynical reasons only, because it offered them vital extra votes, would similarly be unlikely to back out because that would only lose them the extra votes they sought to gain by signing the Pledge in the first place. For all politicians, then, backing out of the pledge to implement Simpol at any point would not only be illogical, it could also lose them the support of Adopters and, consequently, their parliamentary seats.
Secondly, we need to bear in mind that when support for Simpol has become so widespread that the implementation of Simpol becomes viable, not only would reneging on their commitment to implement Simpol likely cost politicians their seats, allowing the world to degenerate into chaos would be no more in their interests than anyone else’s, corporations included. Thus for everyone, supporting an orderly transition to an inter-governmentally co-operative and sustainable world order, as Simpol could potentially facilitate, would by then quite possibly represent the only sensible alternative.
In addition, Adopters will have the opportunity to gauge how seriously a politician is supporting Simpol prior to implementation. At elections they can look to see when a politician signed the Simpol pledge. Are they a long-term supporter or have they just signed up in the heat of the election? What comment in support of Simpol have they made? Does it demonstrate and understanding of and commitment to the Simpol approach? What have they been doing to encourage other politicians, their party and the government to support Simpol? Do they promote Simpol as part of the solution when they speak in public or write articles? Do they flag up their support of Simpol in their election materials as something they are proud to support and promote?
In past elections Adopters in some constituencies have had the choice of more than one candidate who has signed the Pledge. Increasingly Adopters will be able to see which of those candidates is most serious about Simpol and reflect this in their vote, thus maintaining the pressure on all politicians both to sign the Simpol Pledge and to make Simpol part of their campaigning.
Simpol’s strategy for gaining support for Simpol from political parties or governments would vary from country to country depending on the electoral system. In “first past the post” systems such as in the United Kingdom or the USA, the way Simpol works is by bringing existing political parties into competition with one another.
This competition will be intensified because it is increasingly likely that more and more parliamentary/congressional seats – and even entire elections – will be decided by relatively small numbers of people. That’s because the dictates of international competition have forced the adherence of all mainstream political parties to a narrow, market and corporate-friendly stance. That is why voters increasingly don’t bother to vote and support between the parties is relatively evenly split.
Even with the every popular Obama campaign replacing the old Republican regime during the 2008 Elections, the percentage of winning votes was still only 7%. If you were the next presidential candidate and you failed to sign the Simpol Pledge but your opponent had signed it, you could very well lose yourself the Presidency if only 7% of the population had Adopted Simpol. On the other hand, if you did sign the Simpol Pledge, not only would you have a far greater chance of winning, you wouldn’t risk anything because implementation of Simpol would only go ahead when all or sufficient nations had also signed the Pledge. If you were either the sitting President or the main opposing candidate, what would you do? Under these circumstances, logically it would be in the vital interests of both competing candidates to sign the Pledge: the ideal outcome!
Apart from this, as global problems gradually worsen, even the USA or other countries that we today perceive as ‘winners’ in the global economy or as having no interest in co-operating to solve global problems are increasingly going to become losers in one way or another, either economically, environmentally or in some other way. As those new circumstances become clear, co-operating with Simpol is likely to look far more attractive to politicians and businesspeople than it may today. If Simpol can bring the world to the point of solving global problems, why not take the step? Excuses for not doing so fall away.
Before 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, few could have imagined the dramatic changes that have occurred in countries such as Russia and China. Both have moved rapidly, although not without disruption, from “command and control” economies to market economies. Political freedoms have already come to Russia and while it is possible that greater economic freedom may help to foster moves towards greater political freedom in China, we will have to see if, and how quickly, this occurs.
Whether it does or not, China’s phenomenal economic growth is bringing many difficulties, not least that its environment is failing and managing the social consequences of burgeoning economic growth is also proving problematic. Furthermore, beyond its domestic upheavals, China, like all other nations, cannot escape the severe consequences of global warming and the more open its economy becomes, the more it will be affected by other global threats. Although it is extremely difficult to predict what will happen, global problems seem destined to worsen and China will not be immune. It therefore seems possible that a point may be reached where it would become just as much in China’s interests to co-operate with the implementation of Simpol as it would for any other country. Also, if a time were reached when most other countries had signed up, it seems unlikely that China would want to hold out against the will of the rest of the world who are the customers for the goods it produces. Whether through democratic processes or through simple government decree, China’s co-operation with Simpol remains a distinct possibility.
In many developing countries, citizens are very aware of the constraints put upon their governments by powerful vested interests. The knowledge and organisational abilities of social justice campaigners can put many in rich countries to shame. It is vital for the success of the Simpol campaign that these campaigners are involved. Their first-hand experience and analysis will help ensure policies are realistic and acceptable for their national situation. They will also offer their governments a way out of the current situation where they are largely at the mercy of rich nations and their financial institutions and corporations. Even in undemocratic countries, the power of grassroots movements should not be underestimated.
We are also likely to see developing countries rallying around Simpol as a way to move toward co-operation between nations. Already there are groups of developing countries, some less democratic than others, that come together to try to protect their national interests in international meetings, such as at the World Trade Organisation. As well as coming under pressure from Adopters in their own countries, they will see the impact of Adopters in rich countries and the fact that politicians and governments in rich countries are starting to give their support to Simpol.
Therefore there is no reason to think that developing country governments are unlikely to support Simpol. They are probably more likely to do so because if Simpol delivers global justice their populations will benefit.
If developing country governments are put under pressure by rich countries or their corporations not to support Simpol, this is something we will be well-placed to expose in the rich countries, to mobilize around, and to reverse.
9. You say Simpol can only be implemented when all, or sufficient, nations have Pledged to it. But wouldn’t governments use Simpol as an excuse to delay implementing policies they could implement alone?
Not at all – in fact the contrary is more likely to be the case, because Simpol permits a sorting out of policies into two fundamentally different categories.
Firstly, there are those policies which, if implemented unilaterally by a single or group of nations, would generally be likely to have a positive impact on that nation’s competitiveness. These are clearly policies which can be implemented unilaterally and they would not therefore form part of Simpol in any case. Nations contemplating such policies will clearly want to implement them as soon as possible. After all, if they waited for other nations, they’d lose the competitive advantage!
Secondly, there are those policies which, if implemented unilaterally by a single or group of nations, would generally be likely to have a NEGATIVE impact on competitiveness, employment, capital markets, etc. These policies can best be implemented by all (or virtually all) nations simultaneously and would consequently be included in Simpol. Experience shows that, without Simpol, such policies are drastically scaled back even if a government does give its support them. This is because of the competition that exists between nations and the threat of losing investment and jobs – the obstacles Simpol is designed to overcome. However, in raising awareness of the issues, Simpol will help re-enforce other campaigns calling for smaller changes in the short term. In competing for the votes of Adopters, politicians who have signed the Simpol Pledge may also wish to demonstrate their seriousness by explaining what steps they have taken to address global problems through conventional means.
So, Simpol is very much a parallel strategy to other campaigns. It not only strengthens calls for action in the shorter term, but will increasingly provide a vision of what is possible when governments can be driven to co-operate instead of compete. As policies become better defined, these will be the target for which conventional campaigns are aiming. Conventional campaigns will also take an active part in suggesting their most ambitious policies for inclusion in the Simpol Policy Package.
Either situation is possible. Although all Simpol policy measures would be implemented by governments simultaneously on the same date, some may be implemented in full immediately; others may be implemented according to a timetable, in a gradual fashion, stage-by-stage. All such details remain to be determined through the process of formulating the policy content of Simpol.
Simpol overcomes this because it is a multi-issue policy. Today, politicians attempt to solve problems, such as global warming, by trying to implement single-issue treaties such as the Copenhagen Climate Conference. But even if such treaties were implemented by all nations simultaneously, big-polluting nations, such as the USA, would still lose out to low-polluting nations. This is also why there is no incentive for big polluters to participate in such agreements in the first place. (Often where the big polluters appear to have agreed on measures to combat climate change, they have thus far amounted to business as usual. Many climate campaign groups maintain that the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 will be no different.) Simpol has the potential to overcome this because it can contain more than one policy, thus allowing nations that may lose on one part of the agreement to gain on another.
For example, Simpol could contain both a policy on drastically reduced carbon emissions as well as, say, a global tax on foreign exchange transactions (such as the Tobin Tax), with both being implemented together by all or sufficient nations simultaneously. Some of the proceeds from the Tobin Tax could then be used to sweeten the pill for those nations badly hit on the emissions part of the agreement. In this way, agreement can be achieved and no nation need significantly lose out to any other.
Whilst it may be difficult today to imagine such policies, we can already see how many problems of the world economy, the environment and other aspects of life are becoming truly global in scope and, furthermore, made worse by destructive global competition. Already today we can see proposals for policies based on global simultaneous implementation emerging; the most obvious being the Tobin Tax. Another would be U.S. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s legislation introduced into the House of Representatives (HR-2545) calling for the abandonment of U.S. nuclear weapons when all nuclear states do likewise. Policies such as Contraction & Convergence to solve global warming also require simultaneous implementation. As far as any future regulation of transnational corporations is concerned, surely it is difficult to see how any significant regulation could possibly be implemented on any basis other than globally and simultaneously.
Simpol also aims to produce a coherent set of policies and this has enormous potential for addressing global problems in a coordinated fashion. At present there are conflicts between campaigners for global justice. Some, for example, believe that developing countries require access to rich markets to trade themselves out of poverty. Others argue that international trade globalizes poverty as workers are played off against each other. Environmental campaigners then raise the issue of needless transportation of goods and the need for local production and consumption. Simpol cuts across these competing interests and brings Adopters from all these and other viewpoints together to try to resolve their particular concerns in a mutually re-enforcing way. In practice, this could involve polluter-pays taxation on transportation of goods, encouraging local production and consumption, coupled with an opening of markets so that tropical goods manufactured in the country of origin (the phase that adds most value) can gain a fair share of the market. Add to that the reform of subsidies to stop dumping of rich country surpluses on developing countries, the canceling of unpayable debt which could then be used for education and a world where global justice becomes a reality starts to emerge.
But implementing policies globally and simultaneously need NOT mean a ‘one-size-fits-all’ effect for all nations. Indeed, Simpol’s measures and provisions will undoubtedly include agreed exemptions or compensations which may be appropriate to different countries so that, although the policy is implemented globally and simultaneously, its provisions can affect different countries in different ways. Take Income Tax as an example of this principle at the national level. Income Tax is applied ‘globally’ (in the sense of applying to every person in a particular country) and it is applied simultaneously (in the sense of its provisions applying from a given date onwards). But since richer people pay more Income Tax and poorer people less, the effect across the population is graduated in a fair manner. Income Tax, although it is applied ‘globally’ and simultaneously, is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy. The same principle would apply to Simpol at the global level with some countries paying more than others and some receiving more than others, according to each country’s circumstances, abilities and needs.
In other words, nation states would implement the same policies in a way befitting that nation and similarly local governments and councils would do the same.
13. How is the range of Simpol policy measures to be formulated and by whom?
Simpol is fundamentally a democratic space in which people around the world can discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems.
The Simpol project is based on the concept of nation states and on how Simpol Adopters can apply mounting electoral pressure on their leaders to bring them to cooperate with other nations to solve global problems. Thus, national Simultaneous Policy organizations will, as far as possible, be established in every country of the world as (NSPOs). In their structure, they will each reflect the twin processes of policy formulation and building the number of Simpol Adoptions. And, subject to internal NSPO agreement, Local Simpol Groups will be formed in each national electoral district to take the campaign forward at the local level.
Simpol-UK was the first NSPO to be incorporated as a not-for-profit company. It is democratically organised and membership-based, with a Board of Trustees, Management Board and Policy Committee. It is building a Local Group Network on a regional and, ultimately, electoral constituency basis. Local Simpol Adopters’ Groups in any part of the world can propose policies for inclusion in the policy package. Indeed, at the present time, any Adopter can put forward a policy suggestion which is processed by Simpol-UK’s elected Policy Committee. As the campaign grows, each NSPO will eventually have its own Policy Committee which will take over this responsibility for their country.
Policy suggestions are offered to the rest of the network for discussion and development. Particular groups of Adopters are championing particular ideas and reconsider and adapt their proposals in the light of feedback from other groups. Groups can also take on proposals from other local groups, or even outside organisations, and develop and adapt them further. Through sharing ideas and reacting to the criticism of groups elsewhere in the country and in other parts of the world, each group will have to consider the impact of the way of life of its members on others in a way that currently does not occur. The interrelatedness of our living conditions in a globalised world will become increasingly evident. The fact that we are all trapped by a system that is designed for, and controlled by, economic interests rather than working in humanity’s interests will increase the desire for a restructuring of how we manage the relationships between nations. It will also increase the desire to move towards an overarching system of internationally co-operative regulations within which healthy competition can flourish.
Already there is a great deal of discussion by certain sectors of society of the problems thrown up by globalisation. The Simpol campaign draws that into a process of developing long-term, sustainable policy solutions. This occurs in parallel to more conventional campaigning, which must, of course, continue. What Simpol offers is the opportunity to go beyond just opposing vested interests and beyond wringing whatever concessions we can from our leaders. It provides the opportunity to answer the question: ‘How do you want the world to be?’ And to make that world a reality.
Managing the policy development process
To harness the energy and innovation of different groups, National Policy Committees, appointed by each NSPO and its members, oversee the policy development process in their country. The first Policy Committee was formed by Simpol-UK. At the outset its members were appointed by the Simpol-UK Board of Trustees after an open invitation to UK Adopters. Since October 2006 its members have been elected by UK Adopters. It is for each NSPO to decide how to form its Policy Committee, in accordance with the principles in the Simultaneous Policy Founding Declaration. The terms of reference for Policy Committees are likely to evolve over time as the complexity of the task increases.
A Global Policy Board, appointed by the NSPO members of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation, is to oversee the work of the national Policy Committees
The role of a National Policy Committee is twofold. Firstly, it is to monitor the policy ideas being developed by local groups and other groupings of Adopters to identify themes. On each theme there will be common and conflicting proposals. Bringing these together and communicating them back to Adopters through local groups and other means of communication will aid debate. This monitoring will also identify possible commonality and conflicts across themes. For example, proposals for a tax on emissions of greenhouse gases could be linked to proposals to revise import tariff systems to encourage local processing and use of resources.
Secondly, the Global Policy Board and National Policy Committees have the task of feeding expert analysis into the policy development process. A great deal of work has already been done by campaigning and advocacy organisations in analysing global problems and proposing solutions. Simpol does not intend to duplicate this. Any involvement of outside experts is to be in accordance with the terms of reference developed by the Policy Committee in consultation with Adopters.
So there is a process of bottom-up and top-down sharing of ideas. In addition, there is an international sharing of ideas at all levels as well as a means for making use of outside expertise. Local groups can twin with groups in other countries to bounce their proposals off each other. The Global Policy Board facilitates the same process between the National Policy Committees as well as acting as a broker and facilitator between them.
Finalising the policy package
Themes to be addressed by Simpol are already emerging in countries such as the UK where preliminary voting has already taken place to establish the most important ones. In the shorter term consensus on the themes within each nation will be achieved through the National Policy Committee representing the views of Simpol Adopters fed through their local groups or through other means of communication. This will make it easier to communicate what Simpol aims to achieve to those not already involved in the campaign, so boosting involvement. In the longer term, proposals on the different themes will emerge and will ultimately be discussed at the international level through international meetings of the different National Policy Committees from countries around the world. But since policies will inevitably affect different nations in different ways, it will be the role of the Global Policy Board to broker an agreement amongst the various National Policy Committees on any national exceptions or compensatory arrangements that may be needed, and to achieve a consensus around these.
Unlike inter-governmental meetings, these conferences will be open and transparent. The only representatives will be those chosen by Simpol Adopters. There will be no lobbying by vested interests nor any back-room deals.
Simpol is based on the concept of nation states, and on how co-operation between them can be achieved. So, our aim is that National Simultaneous Policy Organisations (NSPOs) will, as far as possible, be established in every country of the world.
The organisational structure of each NSPO will reflect the twin processes of policy formulation and provisional adoption. And, subject to internal NSPO agreement, Local Simpol Groups will be formed in each parliamentary constituency to further the campaign at local level.
Simpol-UK was incorporated in 2004 as a non-profit, democratically organised and membership-based company with Boards for Trustees, Management and Policy Representatives, supported by regional and local coordinators. Simpol-NZ was incorporated in 2006. Other NSPOs are expected to incorporate soon.
16. How does Simpol relate to global governance and global democracy?
When implemented, Simpol would constitute a form of global governance because the effect of all or sufficient nations simultaneously implementing a commonly agreed set of policies which would have global and binding legislative effect. And since the policy measures of Simpol are to be decided by citizens around the world who support Simpol, Simpol would also be essentially democratic, while still respecting the equality of all nations.
Remember, however, that Simpol is to include only those policies which nations cannot implement alone due to the fear of competitive disadvantage, so all other policies would have nothing whatever to do with Simpol and can continue to be implemented independently by individual nations. In this way, national autonomy is maintained wherever possible and global co-operation is fostered by Simpol only wherever it is needed. Simpol thus naturally embodies the principle of subsidiarity and represents a synthesis of global unity and national diversity!
Furthermore, since Simpol is perhaps the only initiative which permits citizens to use their votes in national elections to drive their politicians to support the global programme that Simpol represents, Simpol could be described as the first – and perhaps the only – form of global electoral politics. It is the way each citizen can make their vote really count, not just nationally, but globally. Simpol is an emergent, people-centred global governance. Adopting Simpol is your global democratic right as well as your global personal responsibility.!
17. How does Simpol differ from conventional methods of international treaty-making?
There are three main differences:
Firstly, traditional international treaty-making assumes that, once a treaty is agreed, participating nations are completely free to implement its provisions. In the current competitive environment, however, when governments return from a Treaty Summit, they run up against the problem of competitiveness. With respect to the Kyoto Protocol (and subsequent international talks on climate change), for example, the green taxes needed to reduce emissions risk making the industries of nations implementing such taxes uncompetitive thus risking jobs (and votes) being lost. Consequently, the fear of uncompetitiveness remains and those taxes inevitably get watered down and the full provisions of the protocol then remain unfulfilled. This is why even the very modest internationally agreed targets for reducing emissions (and targets in other treaties) are continually being missed. Instead, Simpol would perhaps re-regulate global capital and transnational corporations (TNCs) thus eliminating the forces which presently cause each government to fear that a full and proper implementation of the necessary taxes and measures will cause uncompetitiveness and job losses. Once Simpol measures to re-regulate global capital, tax havens and TNCs are in place, therefore, treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol could, for the first time, actually be fully implemented.
Secondly, most of today’s international treaties tend to consist of agreements on targets, leaving the means to achieving them open to each participating nation to decide. The underlying fear of uncompetitiveness thus remains because, although many countries ought to be imposing such taxes to meet the agreed targets at about the same time, there is no detailed agreement between them on their precise timing nor on which industries will be affected and to what extent. Under Simpol, by contrast, specific industries, products or taxes could be identified as part of Simpol with the likely effect on the competitiveness of each nation having been assessed, and if necessary compensated for, as part of the agreement.
Finally, and most importantly, international treaties are commonly initiated by governments and not by civil society. (At best, civil society might be requested to ratify a treaty via a referendum.) It could therefore be said that, in the case of conventional treaty making, “governments lead civil society”. However, if one country is by far the most powerful in the world, as the USA is today, there is absolutely no incentive for its government to co-operate in any treaty or agreement which might in any way reduce or constrain its nation’s power, freedom of action, way of life, etc. This is essentially why the USA has not played the game with respect to the Kyoto Protocol (and subsequent talks), the International Criminal Court or most other such treaties which it perceives as threatening its dominant economic position. So with one country being dominant, you have a stalemate. The ability of other governments to lead the process is undermined because, without the participation of the dominant government, the impact of their agreements will be limited. Simpol is different because it permits members of civil society, through their Adoption of Simpol, both to participate in formulating the ‘Treaty’ itself (i.e. the measures of Simpol) and, because adoption of Simpol represents a commitment on how Adopters will vote in future elections, it enables them to bring intense electoral pressure to bear on politicians to co-operate (i.e. to pressure them into pledging to implement Simpol). In other words, with Simpol, civil society has the potential to lead governments, not the other way round. And this use by citizens – particularly those in the USA – of Simpol’s novel form of electoral pressure is thus potentially capable of bringing the US government to co-operate and thus to break the present US dominance stalemate.
18. The Kyoto Protocol still went ahead without the USA’s participation. So why do we need Simpol?
A key reason why the Kyoto Protocol proceeded without the participation of the USA is because the present provisions of the treaty are so mild. As such, the loss of competitive advantage likely to be suffered by those nations proceeding with the Protocol is not likely to be significant compared to the United States. But were the provisions of the Protocol to require much more stringent emissions reductions – as would be needed if a really significant impact on global warming is to be achieved – you would soon find no major nation willing to go ahead unless all did likewise because the significant additional costs their industries would have to bear compared to those of nations not participating would not be economically sustainable: the competitive disadvantage would simply be too great. So if we are going to have international agreements that are going to have a really significant effect on the environmental problems they’re designed to solve, we’re not going to get them unless all, or virtually all, nations implement them simultaneously. Hence the urgent need for Simpol!
It is notable that in implementing Kyoto, industry has, as expected by ISPO’s analysis, raised the spectre of investment and jobs leaving for other nations if targets are too stringent. Within the Europe Trading Scheme (ETS) set up to implement Kyoto, the German and UK governments tried to weaken their proposed cuts in emissions following industry pressure.
The above thinking is also relevant to many other international initiatives. Take the Tobin Tax, for example. Any such cross-border tax could, some people say, be implemented unilaterally by a restricted group of nations, such as by the European Union. That may be so. But the effectiveness of the tax depends upon how high it is. If it is to be truly effective, the level of the tax must be relatively high. But the higher the tax is, the more incentive there will be for traders to site their operations outside those countries implementing the tax in order to avoid it. As a result, if the European Union ever does unilaterally implement the Tobin Tax, it is likely to be of such a mild and insignificant nature and will likely do little or nothing to calm foreign currency speculation. It is this logic which should indicate that what is needed to secure our global future is the implementation by all or virtually all nations of robust taxes and measures which have a truly significant effect. Hence the need for Simpol.
Perhaps the best way to answer this is take the development of the European Union (EU) as an example. In past centuries Europe consisted of myriad nations who were at war with one another more or less continuously. Large quantities of arms were produced and consumed in Europe in those wars, and millions died.
But as the nations of Europe gradually learned to co-operate economically, and to some extent politically with one another, and have now formed themselves into the EU, the thought that they might ever go to war with one another has become virtually unthinkable. So although large quantities of weapons are still produced in the EU, they are now only for ‘consumption’ outside its borders. The market the EU itself represented for the use/consumption of such weapons was thus abolished because it became an essentially co-operative group of nations.
Simpol extends this thinking to the global level since it provides a basis upon which all nations can together solve global problems through simultaneous government policies and taxes across national borders with appropriate redistribution and compensation between them. So this, if you like, is a form of co-operation similar (though not identical) to what has happened in the EU. And if co-operation can be extended by Simpol to cover all nations, the entire world would have become largely co-operative rather than competitive. And so, as it was with Europe, the global market for large quantities of weapons – i.e. the need for them – would effectively have been abolished.
Now that’s not to say that all war would cease. But the whole global atmosphere would be changed by Simpol to the point where the chances of large-scale war would have become extremely small and there would also be a strong incentive for all nations to ensure that things remained that way. The best antidote for war is co-operation!
20. There are so many local initiatives ranging from Transition Towns, LETS schemes to co-operative small businesses – and there’s more and more of them starting up all the time. And what’s more, they’re happening NOW! So why do we need Simpol? Aren’t these local initiatives the only way to go? Aren’t they sufficient to move the world towards sustainability?
Many Simpol Adopters are also involved with such projects as they are an important part of what can be done for local provisioning in a sustainable way. Simpol Adopters also realise that every level must be taken care of if we are to overcome a general scarcity of resources. Social and environmental commentators are increasingly agreeing that to be sustainable, and in a way that people will go along with, that is, in a way that will enhance, not reduce people’s standard of living, we need to act in a local and global way e.g. extending our energy grids to be global, international sharing sources of CO2 neutral energy and to share the financial burden of such undertakings. Commentators say time after time, that the means and technology is there but the politics isn’t.
Although many people are converting to new local only lifestyles, very many billions are not. And those billions are likely to remain in thrall to consumerism and highly dependent on the global economy. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that small-scale initiatives will gradually replace the existing global economy in a benign and peaceful fashion. As economic, environmental or social dislocations gradually increase in size and intensity as the global economy starts to dislocate, it is not unlikely that civil disobedience and social unrest could result. And in such circumstances small-scale initiatives which have been lovingly and painstakingly built up over many years would be in danger of being over-run and destroyed as people’s supermarket shelves become empty and their gas stations run dry. In the light of this possibility, there is no substitute for proper legislation and governance. So why not “Act Globally and Locally”? Keep going with your local initiative and act globally too by Adopting Simpol!
Activists of all kinds are coming to realise that politicians and governments have become increasingly captive to the demands of transnational corporations, the money markets and the necessity of maintaining their nation’s ‘competitiveness in the global market place’. Forms of persuasion such as lobbying, street protest and direct action have made some important wins and have been incremental in raising public awareness, however, these methods are limited in their ambition for change in full because the targets of that action – politicians and big business- are unable respond due to the need to remain competitive. Where changes or concessions are gained by activists, they are still far from sufficient. This does not mean we should stop activities of public expression and dissent, on the contrary.
As public opinion now largely seems to be largely in favour of living in a just and sustainable world, campaigners could, via Simpol, engage and overrun the present system whilst bringing the rest of the public with them. What’s more, they could do so alongside those not presently taking part in protests but who are happy to use the power of their votes. What Simpol offers is a means to give everyone, including activists, an additional and complementary way for them to drive forward their objectives in a completely new, undiluted and politically effective way; a way which augments and supports their existing campaigns. This can be done alongside taking action for what governments are able to implement alone without global co-operation.
If we want change in full we must become just as sophisticated as the system being protested against and without sacrificing our values and passion for life.
If you have any further questions about Simpol or ISPO, please e-mail us at info@simpol.org
