{"id":81446,"date":"2025-04-07T07:42:31","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T06:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=81446"},"modified":"2025-04-07T08:24:41","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:24:41","slug":"what-is-globalisation-is-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2025\/04\/07\/what-is-globalisation-is-dead\/","title":{"rendered":"What if globalisation is dead?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This was an Independent<\/a> headline yesterday:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As we all know, if anyone bought a copy of the Independent yesterday (is it still printed?), this would be chip paper by now (and I know newspaper is not used for such a purpose now, but live with the metaphor, please).<\/p>\n

Let's also be clear, this is all based on a, no doubt anonymous, briefing from Downing Street and may have as much substance to it as do a unicorn's tears.<\/p>\n

However, presuming this to be correct, what on earth is Starmer thinking?<\/p>\n

The opposite of globalisation is localisation, or even nationalisation.<\/p>\n

The chance both provide is a choice to set your own standards, free from the artificial competitive pressure that globalisation created. In other words, the need for the abandonment of the supposed red tape that has actually been immensely beneficial to most of humankind by enforcing standards, protecting people from harm and by defending human rights, is not what is required now. We could, in fact, celebrate this moment by highlighting our differences.<\/p>\n

Alternatively, Starmer could appreciate that we are most definitely a trading nation, but in that case, we need to show leadership by building a new world architecture that upholds standards and avoids a race to the bottom of the sort he is proposing because he very clearly does not understand what is actually collapsing all around him.<\/p>\n

Is there any chance of such thinking from Starmer? Not much, I suspect, at the moment. The man is too stupid to realise what a changed world requires of him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This was an Independent headline yesterday: As we all know, if anyone bought a copy of the Independent yesterday (is it still printed?), this would
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,118,106],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-labour","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81446"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81451,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81446\/revisions\/81451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}