Rich Letherbarrow 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🐺

The Great Reset: When Global Ambition Outruns Democracy In January 2019, Britain's Conservative government invited the World Economic Forum to help shape regulation of emerging technologies. Artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, drones and precision medicine were among them. Business Secretary Greg Clark announced the partnership at Davos. An unelected international organisation, closely connected to major corporations, was being brought into regulatory policy. Where was the public debate? Where was the democratic mandate? The agreement belonged to a wider pattern. In 2015, Britain endorsed the United Nations' Agenda 2030, comprising 17 Sustainable Development Goals covering poverty, education, energy, climate, inequality and, through its targets, migration. By 2017, ministers confirmed these objectives were being incorporated into departmental plans. International ambitions were entering the machinery of British government, with little public understanding of their implications. In December 2018, Theresa May's government endorsed the Marrakech Global Compact for Migration. Its 23 objectives covered migration management, legal pathways, integration, border controls and returns. Ministers stressed that the agreement was non-binding and preserved national sovereignty. Legally correct, but politically it left a question unanswered. Why should international frameworks influence Britain's immigration priorities without far greater public scrutiny? Then, in June 2019, the United Nations signed a strategic partnership with the WEF to accelerate Agenda 2030. It covered finance, climate change, health, digital governance, education and other priorities. An intergovernmental institution had joined forces with a body whose influence depends heavily on access to political leaders and multinational corporations. Who scrutinised that relationship, and whose interests carried the greatest weight? A year later came Covid. Klaus Schwab, the WEF's founder, saw the pandemic as an opportunity for a Great Reset of capitalism. He advocated far-reaching changes to taxation, investment, corporate governance and economic policy. Governments had acquired extraordinary powers, businesses were struggling, and citizens were living under restrictions previously unimaginable in peacetime. Yet the head of an international policy organisation was presenting the crisis as an opportunity to transform society. That should trouble anyone who values democratic government. Emergencies demand urgent action, but must never become a convenient means of advancing permanent political reforms without public consent. A crisis does not give ministers a blank cheque to reshape the relationship between the state, business and the individual. The WEF cannot legislate for Britain. Neither Agenda 2030 nor the Marrakech Compact transferred parliamentary sovereignty to the United Nations. But influence does not require legislative authority. It operates through advisory bodies, regulatory partnerships, shared objectives and the adoption of policies developed beyond Westminster. Keir Starmer's attitude was revealing. Asked in January 2023 whether he preferred Davos or Westminster, he chose Davos, dismissing Parliament as "too constrained". International cooperation has its place. Governments need expertise, and many problems cross national borders. But there is a difference between seeking advice and allowing powerful outside interests privileged influence over decisions affecting millions. British ministers chose these partnerships. They remain answerable for the policies that follow. They should disclose what influence international organisations have exercised, which recommendations were adopted and why Parliament and the public should accept them. The Great Reset and the preceding agreements were public. Their influence on British policy deserves far closer scrutiny. A democracy must answer to its people, not the consensus of international conferences.