Implementation/FAQ

This page explains why governments and political parties are no longer able to solve our mounting global problems. It explains what the Simultaneous Policy (SP) is and why it offers an alternative and effective means of solving global problems. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section provides more detailed questions and answers about SP.

What prevents governments from solving global problems?
It’s a common belief that politicians and governments have the power to solve many of today’s mounting global problems; problems like global warming, poverty, diminishing natural resources and so on. Solutions to these problems certainly exist in the form of taxes, regulations and a switch to new environmentally friendly technologies. All that is lacking, it is always said, is the political will to implement them.

So why don’t politicians and governments implement them?

The real difficulty is that these solutions would inevitably cost businesses more. Higher taxes or regulations on businesses would make them less profitable. So, no government dares implement these solutions alone because they fear that corporations and investors would simply move or sub-contract their operations to some other country where taxes and regulations are less severe, and where costs are lower. Countries that try to solve global problems would suffer a loss of inward investment and jobs. In short, implementing solutions to global problems would cause an individual nation to lose out against competitor nations. And every nation participates in the global economy so they all suffer from the same fear.

"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge." [UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The Guardian, 3.11.05].

What’s worse, to solve mounting unemployment problems, nations often weaken social and environmental protection regulations and planning laws to make doing business in their country more attractive to global investors and corporations. The idea is that this will bring more investment and jobs – and for a while it does! Until competitor nations do the same thing.

That is why nothing changes except that our problems only get worse. It’s a vicious circle in which all nations are caught; a dangerous game which no nation can ultimately win. As global environmental, social and economic problems are left to worsen, all of us must eventually lose.

"There is a collective action problem internationally." [UK Environment Minister, David Miliband. The Financial Times, 6.12.06].

So, are corporate executives or global investors to blame?
If politicians have become the victims of the vicious circle caused by the free movement of capital and corporations, surely this must be the fault of investors or corporate executives? But this is not so. Because corporate executives and investment managers are forced to seek out the most profitable investments and opportunities and this often means sacrificing social and environmental interests in order to maximize profitable returns. With the shares of major corporations quoted on global stock markets, any corporate executive who fails to maximize profits will lose out to less scrupulous competitors. As the executives themselves say, “if we don’t do it, our competitors will”. The same goes for global investors who are rated by the returns they obtain for their clients. So investors and corporate executives are generally no less aware of global problems than the rest of society. But they, like our politicians, are trapped in the same vicious circle of destructive competition and they have no way out.

Seen in this way, global warming, excessive corporate power, the growing energy crisis and our many other global problems are not the real issue. Because the underlying problem that prevents solutions to all of them is the same: it is that nations are caught in a vicious circle of destructive competition from which they cannot escape. Global warming, poverty, energy insecurity and so on are not the problem. The problem is a lack of international cooperation!

Why do I feel so powerless in this situation
and why has my vote become meaningless?
The destructive competition between nations caused by the global free movement of capital and corporations is also why simply changing the party in government makes little or no difference. Because any party that comes to govern has no choice but to maintain its nation’s international competitiveness and its attractiveness to global investors and corporations in a bid to maintain or improve levels of employment. Even Green parties, when they come to power, are forced to discard or severely dilute their policies to avoid capital, jobs and investment disappearing to other countries. Looking to politicians and governments alone to solve our problems has thus become substantially futile. The fear of capital and corporations moving elsewhere has created a situation which forces all of them to adopt policies which are market and business-friendly. That is why all political parties once they come to govern end up implementing much the same policies. It’s also why increasing numbers of citizens realize that their votes no longer make much difference and that is why so many of us no longer bother to vote in national elections. To solve global problems citizens around the world need to drive politicians and governments from destructive international competition to fruitful global cooperation. The Simultaneous Policy (SP) is one way – perhaps the only way - we citizens can make that happen.

But just when you thought your vote had become meaningless, the Simultaneous Policy (SP) offers citizens around the world a way to make their votes more powerful than they ever thought possible.

What is the Simultaneous Policy (SP)?
The Simultaneous Policy (SP) offers a way for citizens world-wide to use their votes in a new way to drive politicians and governments to implement solutions to global problems. The Simultaneous Policy puts citizens in control! SP is two things: it is a policy and it is a process.

As a policy, SP will consist of a range of measures to solve global problems. These measures will be designed not by politicians or by unaccountable global institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, but by citizens around the world who support SP or by our chosen independent experts. SP will be our people’s policy for solving global problems and it is to be implemented by all or sufficient nations simultaneously. Simultaneous implementation means that no nation risks losing out to any other. With simultaneous implementation, we break the vicious circle of destructive competition and eliminate all the excuses for inaction and delay.

But SP is also a powerful political process which allows citizens to use their votes to drive politicians and governments to cooperate in implementing SP. To join in this effort, you are invited to “adopt” SP. This means you pledge to vote in future national elections not for a particular politician or party; but for ANY politician or party – within reason – who has signed the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments. Or, if you favour a particular party, you encourage your preferred party to sign the SP Pledge. So, by adopting SP, you give strong preference at future elections to politicians who support SP but you do so without in any way compromising your individual freedom of decision as a voter. This means that ALL citizens, whether right or left, black or white, Christian or Muslim, can adopt SP and so play their part in solving global problems.

Many politicians are signing the SP Pledge simply because they think it’s a good idea. That’s because many of them realise that existing forms of government-to-government treaty-making are incapable of delivering real solutions while nations are forced to compete destructively with one another. Whether politicians voluntarily support SP or not, citizens who adopt SP are placing them under unprecedented political pressure. This is because many seats in parliaments around the world – and even entire elections - are being won or lost by a very small number of votes. So, as more and more citizens adopt SP, politicians are increasingly being faced with a carrot and stick scenario:

The Carrot: Signing the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments holds no risk for politicians because it does not require them to implement SP until sufficient other nations have also signed. In the meantime, politicians can continue to implement their existing policies as now. But signing the pledge means they make themselves eligible to gain the votes of citizens who have adopted SP.

The Stick: But if politicians fail to sign the SP Pledge, it could cost them their seat and hand it to another candidate who has signed the SP Pledge. With more and more seats and entire elections hanging on fine margins, and with previously apathetic voters re-entering politics as adopters of SP, politicians who fail to sign the SP Pledge increasingly risk losing out to those who do. By adopting SP, citizens are thus making it in the vital electoral interests of politicians to sign the SP Pledge.

SP could thus be described as perhaps the first and only form of global electoral politics. It is, perhaps, the only campaign that allows citizens around the world to use their votes in national elections to drive politicians to solve global problems. Adopting SP is free. It’s your global democratic right and, in the absence of any other means of using your vote to solve global problems, adopting SP is also your global democratic responsibility! We invite you to exercise that right and responsibility now. Please click on the “Adopt” button on the left to register your adoption.

Frequently Asked Questions
How does adopting SP affect my vote and its impact on politicians?

How would SP actually be implemented? And who decides on the policies to be included?

Does adopting SP mean that I, as a citizen, am losing my freedom to vote as I choose?

No. The wording of the SP adoption pledge states:
“I pledge to vote in future national elections for ANY political party or candidate – within reason – that has pledged to implement SP alongside other governments. Alternatively, if I have a preference for a certain party, I will encourage my party to pledge to implement SP.”

If you carefully check the wording, you will see that you are pledging to vote in future elections for any politician within reason who has pledged to implement SP alongside other governments. “Within reason” means that, even if a politician or party has signed the SP Pledge, it still remains up to you to decide whether you feel that politician or party is worthy of receiving your vote.

Or, if you have a strong preference for a particular political party, your adoption of SP can alternatively signify your desire for your party to sign the SP Pledge. So adopting SP 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 SP. Meanwhile, politicians who have not yet signed the pledge to implement SP will know what they have to do if they want a chance of gaining your vote and the votes of other SP Adopters. In this way, Adopters are providing a strong electoral incentive to politicians from ALL parties to sign the SP Pledge.

Far from curtailing your voting freedom, Simpol brings real voting power back to the people! By adopting SP, your vote is not only re-empowered at national level, its power is extended to the global level. SP offers you perhaps the first, genuine form of global electoral politics.

For politicians, does signing the pledge to implement SP alongside other governments entail any political risk or potential conflict with party policy?

Many politicians support SP 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 SP Pledge, politicians show that they appreciate that lasting solutions to global problems can only be achieved through cooperation between nation states, with the backing of citizens.

Since SP 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 SP’s implementation arrives. When sufficient governments have pledged to implement SP, implementation proceeds and the nature of global politics changes. Those politicians and parties who have already given their support to SP will be better placed for the new reality.

Politicians who sign the pledge also attract the votes of SP 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 SP Pledge provides politicians both with a political and an electoral advantage over politicians who do not yet support it: for all politicians, supporting SP is a Win-Win!

If you are a politician or candidate and require more information or an SP Pledge form, please contact your country’s National Simultaneous Policy Organisation or contact ISPO.

How can I support SP when its policy content hasn’t even been defined yet? And how can SP still have a political impact?

The range of policy measures that SP will consist of have not yet been decided for two very good reasons:
Firstly, it SP’s policy content had already been decided, by the time the implementation for SP became possible, those measures might very likely be out of date.

Secondly, the policy content of SP is to be formulated, or consented to, by citizens who have adopted SP. So if the policy content were already decided, citizens who adopt SP in the future would be denied the opportunity of having their say. An important principle of SP 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 SP if those in rich countries with better access to channels of communication rushed ahead to settle policies.

Because SP’s policy content is not yet set, when you adopt SP 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 SP Pledge takes full force immediately, so building political support for SP, but your commitment to the policy content of SP 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 SP, 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 time comes to implement SP all citizens, not just Adopters, will be asked to give their consent.

For more information on the kind of policies SP could consist of, go to SP's Scope and Policies Page.

Surely expecting all or sufficient nations to adopt SP is just a dream. Is the Simpol approach truly realistic?

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. 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 SP 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 SP, 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 SP, citizens themselves drive the process. Through their adoption of SP, 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 SP 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 SP and the governments of the EU, the USA, Japan and some developing countries had been driven to sign the SP 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 SP 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 SP 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 SP 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 SP.

But you simply can’t trust politicians. They may say they’ll implement SP, but what’s to stop them simply signing the SP Pledge to get the extra votes they need but then going back on their commitment at a later date?

Firstly, remember that politicians are not required to actually implement SP 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 SP 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 by the time support for SP has become so widespread that the implementation of SP becomes viable, not only would reneging on their commitment to implement SP 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 SP prior to implementation. At elections they can look to see when a politician signed the SP pledge. Are they a long-term supporter or have they just signed up in the heat of the election? What comment in support of SP have they made? Does it demonstrate and understanding of and commitment to the SP approach? What have they been doing to encourage other politicians, their party and the government to support SP? Do they promote SP as part of the solution when they speak in public or write articles? Do they flag up their support of SP 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 SP and reflect this in their vote, thus maintaining the pressure on all politicians both to sign the SP Pledge and to make SP part of their campaigning.

But how are you ever going to get the USA to support SP? Both main U.S. parties are influenced by corporate interests so surely neither party will ever support it?

Simpol’s strategy for gaining support for SP 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 SP 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.

In the USA, SP might gain presidential support in the following way: You'll recall that at the Presidential Election in 2000, the entire result was hanging on just 2000 votes in Florida. Given a similar knife-edge situation at a future presidential election, imagine that by that time, about 5000 voters in Florida had adopted SP and a similar critical number in the other key US states. Then, about two weeks prior to the election, the U.S. Simultaneous Policy Organisation (Simpol-USA) would issue a press release announcing that all U.S. adopters, according to their adoption pledge, will be voting for WHICH EVER of the Republicans or Democrats pledged to implement SP alongside other governments.

Assuming a similar knife-edge situation as existed in 2000, ask yourself what you, as the sitting Presidential candidate for either of the major parties, would have to decide in such circumstances as you sit in the Oval Office. If you failed to sign the SP Pledge but your opponent did, you just lost yourself the Presidency. On the other hand, if you did sign the SP Pledge, not only would you have a far greater chance of winning, you wouldn't risk anything because implementation of SP 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 cooperating 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, cooperating with SP is likely to look far more attractive to politicians and businessmen than it may today. If SP can bring the world to the point of solving global problems, why not take the step? Excuses for not doing so fall away.

What about China, or other countries where no democratic elections are held. How are they to be persuaded to support SP?

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 SP 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 SP remains a distinct possibility.

What about some of the so-called 'Third-World' countries whose governments are either corrupt dictatorships or heavily influenced by foreign corporations or interests. How are you going to get those countries to support SP?

In many developing countries, citizens are very aware of the constrainst put upon their governments by powerful vested interests. The knowledge and organizational abilities of social justice campaigners can put many in rich countries to shame. It is vital for the success of the SP 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 SP as a way to move toward cooperation 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 SP.

Therefore there is no reason to think that developing country governments are unlikely to support SP. They are probably more likely to do so because if SP delivers global justice their populations will benefit.

If developing country governments are put under pressure by rich countries or their corporations not to support SP, this is something ISPO will be well-placed to expose in the rich countries, to mobilize around, and to reverse.

You say SP can only be implemented when all, or sufficient, nations have adopted it. But wouldn't governments then use SP 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 SP 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 SP 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 their 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 SP. Experience shows that, without SP, such policies are drastically scaled back even if a government does give its support because of competition between nations and the threat of losing investment and jobs – the obstacles SP is designed to overcome. However, in raising awareness of the issues, SP will help re-enforce other campaigns calling for small changes in the shorter term. In competing for the votes of Adopters, politicians who have signed the SP Pledge may also wish to demonstrate their seriousness by explaining what steps they have taken to address global problems through conventional means.

So, SP 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 cooperate instead of compete. As policies become better defined, these will be the target for which conventional campaigns are aiming.

Would the policy measures of SP all be implemented globally on the same day or would they be implemented simultaneously, but in agreed stages?

Either situation is possible. Although all SP 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 SP.

But on many single issues, all nations implementing a policy simultaneously doesn't of itself completely eliminate the competitive disadvantage between nations. So how can SP overcome this obstacle?

SP 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 like the Kyoto Protocol. 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. SP 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, SP 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.

But is it actually possible to define policy measures which could be beneficially applied worldwide?

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.

SP 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. SP 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, SP’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 SP 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.

SP 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 SP project is based on the concept of nation states and on how SP Adopters can apply mounting electoral pressure on their leaders to bring them to cooperate with other nations to solve global problems. Thus, national SP organizations will, as far as possible, be established in every country of the world as National Simultaneous Policy Organisations (NSPOs). In their structure, they will each reflect the
twin processes of policy formulation and building the number of SP Adoptions. And, subject to internal NSPO agreement, local SP Adopters’ 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 SP 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 cooperative 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 SP 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 SP 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.

With many ideas being developed by so many groups, the policy development process could become chaotic and incapable of achieving consensus.

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. SP 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.

Themes to be addressed by SP 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 SP Adopters fed through their local groups or through other means of communication. This will make it easier to communicate what SP 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 SP Adopters. There will be no lobbying by vested interests nor any back-room deals.

What organisational structures does Simpol have at national and local levels in order to achieve its objectives?

Simpol is based on the concept of nation states, and on how cooperation between them can be achieved. So, our aim is that National SP 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 SP 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.

How does the Simultaneous Policy (SP) relate to global governance and global democracy?

When implemented, SP would constitute a form of global governance because the effect of all or sufficient nations simultaneously implementing a commonly agreed set of policies would have global and binding legislative effect. And since the policy measures of SP are to be decided by citizens around the world who support SP, SP would also be essentially democratic, while still respecting the equality of all nations.

Remember, however, that SP 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 SP and can continue to be implemented independently by individual nations. In this way, national autonomy is maintained wherever possible and global cooperation is fostered by SP only wherever it is needed. SP thus naturally embodies the principle of subsidiarity and represents a synthesis of global unity and national diversity.!

Furthermore, since SP 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 SP represents, SP 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. SP is an emergent, people-centred global governance. Adopting SP is your global democratic right as well as your global personal responsibility.!

In what ways is the Simultaneous Policy (SP) different to conventional methods of international treaty-making?

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 on climate chane, 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, SP 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 SP 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 SP, by contrast, SPECIFIC industries, products or taxes could be identified as part of SP 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 treatymaking, "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 cooperate 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 will not play the game with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, 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. SP is different because it permits members of civil society, through their Adoption of SP, both to participate in formulating the 'Treaty' itself (i.e. the measures of SP) and, because adoption of SP represents a commitment on how Adopters will vote in future elections, it enables them to bring intense electoral pressure to bear on politicians to cooperate (i.e. to pressure them into pledging to implement SP). In other words, with SP, civil society has the potential to lead governments, not the other way round. And this use by citizens - particularly those in the USA - of SP’s novel form of electoral pressure is thus potentially capable of bringing the US government to cooperate and thus to break the present US dominance stalemate.

The Kyoto Protocol still went ahead without the USA’s participation. So why do we need the Simultaneous Policy(SP)?

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 SP!

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 SP.

I can see how SP would help to solve some of the world's pressing economic and environmental problems, but what effect would it have on the arms trade and the threat of wars?

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 cooperate 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 cooperative group of nations.

SP 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 cooperation similar (though not identical) to what has happened in the EU. And if cooperation can be extended by SP to cover all nations, the entire world would have become largely cooperative 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 SP 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 cooperation!

There are so many local initiatives ranging from eco-cities to organic farms and from LETS schemes to co-operative small businesses - and there's more and more of them starting up all the time. And what's more, there happening NOW! So why do we need SP? Aren't these local initiatives the only way to go? Aren't they sufficient to move the world towards sustainability?

ISPO applauds all such efforts and believes they are absolutely valid in themselves and are to be encouraged. Above all, they point the way towards a sustainable lifestyle and economy for the future. But they are not enough in themselves. Whilst many people are converting to these new 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, not just Locally"? Keep going with your local initiative, whatever it may be. But act globally too by adopting SP.!

What about consumer power, corporate responsibility initiatives and the 'triple bottom line'? Surely they are already bringing errant corporations into line, aren't they?

Again, ISPO applauds such efforts to instill responsible corporate behaviour, where it is not simply a public relations ploy to try to divert criticism of damaging behavour. But it must be understood that corporations and their executives operate in a highly competitive environment. Any corporation acting in a socially and environmentally responsible way which therefore most likely increases its operating costs, puts itself in danger of losing out in the market to its competitors who may not have any such scruples. To a large extent, therefore, corporations can only afford to be as responsible as their main competitors allow. So all initiatives to instill good corporate behaviour are to be encouraged - but they are not enough. Again, ISPO takes the view that there is no substitute for properly adequate regulation. So why not do both? You can boycott any corporation that fails to behave responsibly and you can adopt SP.

Since activists are so focused on their own vision of the problem and on their own activities, whether it's social justice, worker's rights, various aspects of the environment, etc, how is ISPO going to get them to investigate SP and to support it?

Everyone is busy these days. But 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'. As such, conventional forms of persuasion such as lobbying, street protest, direct action, media coverage, etc have are necessarily limited in their ambition because the targets of that action - politicians - are today no longer in any position to respond. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the World Trade Center atrocities, the tolerance of the public and the state to street protest is becoming very low indeed. That is why SP gives activists of all kinds an additional and complementary way to press for their objectives in a completely new, undiluted and politically effective way which augments and supports their existing campaigns. SP enables campaigners to aim for the implementation of the policies that are truly necessary to address the global issue which concerns them alongside lobbying for lesser changes in the shorter term.

If you have any further questions about SP or ISPO, please e-mail us at info@simpol.org