|
Archived Articles  Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian descent, and former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with the hot political and economic topics, both Bulgarian and international. ("A Royal Solution." World Press Review. June 1997, provides English versions). He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in the country, and in 1996-1997 participated in the international monitors' teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria. In 1999 he was among the few Bulgarian journalists that supported NATO military operation against Yugoslavia. In 2002 Simeon and his family emigrated from Bulgaria to Canada where they now live in Montreal, Quebec.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
Britain: Departure of a consensual manBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his resignation after 10 years in office. His political friends and foes have radically different opinions about his political legacy. For me, Blair was first and foremost a man of social consensus and appeasement. He didn't launch any major radical reform; he didn't challenge the existing order; he made concessions to many political factors, both domestic and international. He had some moments of glory, but in the end, he will be remembered as a status quo guy, a person that doesn't like risks and radical changes. Bill Clinton in his second term, a sort of. Which partly explains his political longevity, but may hurt the longevity of his successors.
Economic policyThe economic legacy that took Blair from his conservative predecessors was one of relatively open markets, low union influence, strong influence of the capital markets, and increasing regulations coming from Brussels. This heterodox legacy wasn't changed in any radical way under Blair. Markets, especially capital markets, remained relatively open. Even after some regression in terms of economic freedom, Britain is still the most open economy within larger Europe, and close to the world's top in almost any comparative index.On the other hand, the unions remain relatively weak; weaker than in many other European countries, and weaker than they were in Britain before the second government of Margaret Thatcher. But regarding the general social policy this union weakness doesn't play a big role, given that the government gradually took over some activities that up until the late 1970s were done by the unions, e.g. the workers' upgrading of skills. Under the growing pressure coming from Europe, the Blair's government made some important concessions, especially when it cane to Britain's financial contribution to the Union's budget. He thus reversed the aggressive anti-European trend set up by one of his predecessors Thatcher.
European and devolutionist policyWhich brings us to the next field, i.e. the concessions made by Blair's government toward Europe. He made the strategic decision; or rather by doing nothing in particular against it he allowed a strategic decision to be made upon his country, which basically says that the deeper European integration has no alternatives for Britain. This quiet revolution in the minds of the people will have far reaching consequences. By far the most important will be the change in the political structure of Britain, making some regions stronger and the national government weaker. People start believing that no matter what happens in let's say Scotland won't affect their ordinary lives because after all everybody will still live in Europe. Asking questions like what will come IF the European project fails are considered to be strictly politically incorrect among the Blair's supporters. Giving up sovereignty against only good hopes for the best is hardly a good governmental policy. But the consequences in any way won't come soon, and for the most democratic politicians, Blair being no exception, what matters only is what happens before the next general election.
Kosovo, Afghanistan and IraqIn the foreign policy Blair had its few moment of world glory, but also moments that will represent a burden for his political legacy. In 1999, for a brief moment, it seemed that he was the leader of the West bringing to an end the interminable wars in former Yugoslavia. As if he was frightened of playing a role that he didn't deserve, he later followed the U.S. policy whenever he was asked to do so. Was he right, given the interests of his country? This and the following generations of Brits will answer this question. What was without even slightest doubt was that he bet on Washington thus distancing himself from Paris, Berlin, and Moscow. Thus, he only confirmed the conclusion that he was a non-confrontational man, preferring to be with the party that looked stronger at this particular moment on this particular issue.In general, Blair was a person that didn't like confrontations. It's a good comparison to say that he was the Britain's 'Bill Clinton'. Like after the turbulent years of Reagan, Britain needed a man to calm down the ball after the Thatcher's radical reforms. This quietness, however, had been achieved at the price of constant concessions in almost any field. He bought a social peace on credit, and his successors will have to pay the bill with the interests.
--------------------
See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of United Kingdom.
|
See also: