European Union

For the first time a group of researchers has succeeded in producing a photo of a black hole. The image was obtained using data from the global network of radio telescopes Event Horizon. Black holes are extremely massive and exert colossal gravitational force. What does the photo mean for science and humanity?

The EU has presented ethical guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence. Businesses, research institutes and authorities will now test the guidelines in a pilot phase after which legislation is to be drawn up. Politics and society are still far too passive when it comes to shaping the future, commentators complain.

Committee and political group meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Syndicat des cadres de la sécurité intérieure
Freedom of movement for persons
National legislation may lay down, for the purpose of calculating the average weekly working time, reference periods which start and end on fixed calendar dates

Commission v Poland (Indépendance de la Cour suprême)
Principles of Community law
Advocate General Tanchev: the Court should rule that the provisions of Polish legislation relating to the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges are contrary to EU law

Extraordinary AFET/DEVE Committee meeting with HRVP Mogherini - Strasbourg, 17 April 2019, WIC 200, from 14:30-17:00
Further information
Draft agenda
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

SEDE organised a public hearing on 'Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny on EU Defence Affairs' on Tuesday 2nd April, from 14.30 to 16.00, with external experts
Further information
Programme
Poster
Presentation on "Democratic accountability and parliamentary control in foreign and security policy" by Kolja Raube, KU Leuven
Presentation on "Parliamentary practices in providing parliamentary oversight in security and defence policy – role of some national parliaments" by Hans Born, DCAF
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

This post first appeared at the Open Migration Project

 

The so-called “refugee crisis” prompted the urge to ensure the functioning of the Schengen area and the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), the need to operationally assist those Member States most affected by the sudden and extraordinary arrival of mixed migratory flows, and the convenience to effectively and uniformly implement the European Union (EU) measures adopted in regards to migration, asylum and border management matters. Among the foremost measures put forward at the EU level to cope with this implementation deficit was the creation of the European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) and the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the reinforcement of EUROPOL’s mandate, and the promotion of their operational inter-agency cooperation on the ground through the “hotspot approach”.

In 2016 EUROPOL’s mandate was strengthened, FRONTEX was transformed into the EBCG, and the European Commission put forward the creation of the EUAA. Although a partial agreement on the future EUAA has already been reached between the Council and the European Parliament, the Regulation repealing EASO has not yet been adopted. The new legal frameworks shift the reasoning of these agencies’ powers and move from a reactive to a proactive approach. That is, their operational tasks shall not only center on assisting the Member States and enhancing their coordination, but also preventing potential national vulnerabilities that may subsequently lead to an untenable scenario for the competent national authorities. Regulation 2016/794 vests a nascent operational role to EUROPOL by determining that the agency may facilitate the investigation’s information exchange, provide extensive analytical support, deploy its mobile offices, and exchange in real-time and immediately cross-check against EUROPOL’s databases the information gathered. In addition, on 22 February 2016, EUROPOL launched the European Migrant Smuggling Center (EMSC). This center aims to proactively support EU Member States in dismantling criminal networks involved in organized migrant smuggling.

The recently established EBCG and the future EUAA may require the competent national border and asylum authorities to effectively implement EU law and to take immediate action under emergency situations. The EBCG and the EUAA may even intervene in the territory of the Member States to ensure that the EU border management and asylum measures are applied, and that the Schengen area and the CEAS are not ultimately jeopardized. In particular, Regulation 2016/1624 delegates the EBCG greater technical and operational competences. The EBCG may acquire its own technical equipment and have a Rapid Reaction Pool of at least 1,500 border guards to be deployed immediately in joint operations or rapid border interventions. Significantly, the EBCG is also empowered to monitor the effective functioning of the external borders of the Member States, carry out vulnerability assessments, verify whether a Member State is able to effectively enforce EU law and detect deficiencies in the management of its borders.

The future EUAA will be in charge of organizing and coordinating the appropriate operational support in cases where the national asylum and reception systems are subject to exceptional pressure. An asylum reserve pool of a minimum of 500 persons should be made available by the Member States for their immediate deployment and should assist those national authorities subject to extraordinary migratory pressure. Another significant novelty in comparison to the EASO will be the involvement of the future EUAA in the examination of international protection applications. This means that, while decisions on individual applications for asylum remain the Member States’ sole responsibility, the future EUAA, upon the request of a Member State, will be able to draft decisions on asylum applications.

Moreover, as a result of the “refugee crisis” of unprecedented dimensions, the European Commission adopted on 13 May 2015 the European Agenda on Migration. The Agenda aimed to design a common strategy in which the Member States, the EU institutions, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) agencies, international organizations, civil society, local authorities and third countries are all involved in a coordinated manner. Among all these actors, FRONTEX, EASO and EUROPOL were mandated to play a key inter-agency operational role at the hotspots.

In the hotspots, EUROPOL’s guest officers are in charge of identifying risk profiles, performing second-line security checks, and providing analytical and investigation support to dismantle smuggling and trafficking in human beings networks. EUROPOL’s officials, jointly with the EBCG and the concerned Member State, also debrief the arrived migrants at the hotspots. EASO assists the national asylum authorities by informing the arriving migrants, as well as identifying, registering and relocating applicants for international protection. The experts and technical equipment deployed by the EBCG in the hotspots facilitate national sea border surveillance and search and rescue operations. The EBCG also assists the national authorities in disembarking, screening, registering, identifying, fingerprinting, debriefing and assessing the nationality of the arriving migrants, as well as facilitating and coordinating the return operations of those migrants with no right to remain in the EU. Despite the secrecy surrounding the specific functions and the extent of the hands-on support that FRONTEX, EASO, and EUROPOL develop de facto in the hotspots, these agencies notably strain their vague legal mandates, and their operational tasks go well beyond the pure technical assistance and promotion of coordination.

Firstly, article 5 Regulation 2016/1624 on the EBCG states that Member States “retain primary responsibility for the management of their sections of the external borders” and that “the Agency shall support the application of Union measures relating to the management of the external borders by reinforcing, assessing and coordinating the actions of Member States in the implementation of those measures and in return”. However, FRONTEX, in practice, aids in determining the nationality of the disembarked or rescued migrants, and exerts a crucial influence over the Greek officials, who, due to the extraordinary migratory pressure they are subject to, may in practice base their final decision entirely on FRONTEX’ assessment. FRONTEX’ strong recommendatory powers may have a very significant effect on a potential incorrect registration regarding the nationality of an irregular migrant, since a nationality screening largely determines and directly impacts the subsequent procedures of relocation, asylum, and return of the irregular migrants in the hotspots.

Secondly, according to article 4(1)(c) Regulation 2016/794 on EUROPOL, the agency shall “coordinate, organize and implement investigative and operational actions to support and strengthen actions by the competent authorities of the Member States”. Whereas EUROPOL’s primary mission shall center on exchanging information and generating criminal intelligence, under the hotspot approach the agency also deploys guest officers on the ground, conducts second-line security checks, participates in debriefing the arriving migrants, and through the EMSC, operationally supports the competent national enforcement authorities in their investigations. Despite EUROPOL’s operational role, in the recently adopted Regulation of EUROPOL there is not a single mention of this agency’s operational powers in the hotspots. Hence, the total secrecy surrounding the operational support of EUROPOL in the hotspots and the lack of any legal reference to the activities of the agency on the ground prevent the general public from assessing the actual implications, meaning, and extent of EUROPOL’s operational support.

Lastly, Regulation 439/2010 of EASO indicates that the agency “should have no direct or indirect powers in relation to the taking of decisions by Member States’ asylum authorities on individual applications for international protection” (recital 14). Nonetheless, EASO primarily focuses on informing the irregular migrants of asylum and relocation procedures and facilitating the analysis of asylum applications to the national authorities in the Italian hotspots. However, since the adoption of the EU-Turkey statement and the Greek Law 4375/2016, the agency is also in charge of registering and conducting the interviews of the applicants for international protection in the Greek hotspots.

In addition, while EASO is conducting asylum interviews, it also identifies vulnerable cases and forwards them to the Greek asylum office, which ultimately confirms the existence of such vulnerability. EASO’s assessment of vulnerability is not trivial, but rather carries significant consequences for the applicant of international protection. If a deployed expert of EASO, who is undertaking an asylum interview, does not identify or wrongly classifies an applicant as non-vulnerable, the case will follow the fast-track border procedure, which provides fewer guarantees.In other words, until the future Regulation on the EUAA enters into force, the agency’s power to autonomously conduct the asylum interviews and draft an admissibility recommendation to the Greek Asylum Service will openly exceed the initial mandate of Regulation 439/2010, establishing EASO. The experts deployed by EASO in the Greek hotspots are operating in a legal limbo, in which it is unclear as to the extent of their specific operational responsibility and as to whether the procedural safeguards of the Greek legislation apply to them when examining the admissibility of asylum applications.

Therefore, while the Regulations of these AFSJ agencies continue to stress that their operational role is limited to providing the competent national authorities with the technical assistance they may require, the tasks of the EBCG, EASO, and to a more limited extent, EUROPOL, have a clear operational nature on the ground. These agencies gradually steer and shape the effective and uniform implementation of EU migration, asylum, and border management laws and policies at the national and local level. The reinforcement of the operational tasks and implementation role of the EBCG, EASO, and EUROPOL is not in itself an issue. What is problematic, however, is the broad formulation of these AFSJ agencies’ legal bases and the lack of transparency surrounding their operational activities and cooperation, rendering the task of determining the degree of discretion that they enjoy difficult. It thus remains to be seen to what extent EUROPOL, the EBCG and the future EUAA will openly interpret their supervisory and intervention capacity, and whether the EU rules and policies on border management and asylum will ultimately be more effectively and uniformly implemented.

The post Frontex, Easo and Europol: From a Secondary to a Pivotal Operational Role in the Aftermath of the “Refugee Crisis” appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

The dates will be confirmed after the elections to the European Parliament in May 2019.

Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

Since 2016, the European Union has developed a number of new initiatives on security and defence. In particular, the introduction of Permanent Structured Cooperation and the European Defence Fund have been designed to allow the EU to become a more autonomous actor with regard to crisis management, capacity building and protecting Europe and its citizens. Yet the development of these new initiatives raises questions about
their overall coherence and the role of parliamentary scrutiny. It is necessary to analyse the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in relation to the scrutiny of the European Defence Fund. There is a need for recommendations on how parliamentary scrutiny can be enhanced at the EU level in the area of security and defence.
Further information
Full study
Source : © European Union, 2019 - EP

On Tuesday 9 April, Brussels will host the 21st EU-China summit. This time around, the underlying tone of the meetings may be slightly different than before, following the recent “Strategic Vision” submitted by the Commission to the Council.

In its relations with the People’s Republic of China the EU is said to be unable to speak with one voice. It’s true that the recent decision of the Italian government to officially join the Belt and Road Initiative, or the eagerness with which several Central and Eastern European member-states have embraced China’s offer in an association known as the ‘16+1’, do not exactly point in the direction of a joint European position.

This makes the ‘strategic vision’ published by the Commission on 12 March all the more interesting. The document has been widely commented upon, which is no surprise, given that it clearly takes no precautions to avoid hurting Chinese sensitivities. Identifying the PRC as a ‘systemic rival’ and openly reminding the extent to which its commitment to multilateralism is very ‘selective’ comes close to a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in attitude and tone, as François Godemont put it in a recent post.

The rather dense document of eleven pages seems to spell the end of a certain European naïveté in its dealings with a major power that is simultaneously referred to as ‘cooperation partner’ and ‘economic competitor’. It lists a whole series of usual demands, for more reciprocity and fair-play, which at last should ‘demonstrate China’s commitment to a mutually beneficial economic relationship’. A sentence that certainly sounds almost aggressive to Chinese ears.

Where does this spectacular turnaround come from? Tracing back the origin of some wordings in the Commission’s paper, we are tempted to link this change of strategy to a change of awareness and, consequently, doctrine in Germany.

To put it bluntly, Germany is scared.

Scared to lose its position as major global industrial player, to be overtaken in tomorrow’s most important economic sectors, and to lose its prosperity on the way.

A policy paper published in January by the German Industrial Federation (BDI), bears the very term ‘systemic competitor’ already in its title. Asking ‘How Do We Deal with China’s State-Controlled Economy?’, the entire 23-page document is a call to Europe, punctuated by a list of 54 demands and propositions, to formulate a genuine European industrial policy in face of a ‘partner’ that is increasingly depicted as an ‘adversary’.

As early as February, this policy paper was followed by the publication of ‘Strategic guidelines for a German and European industrial policy’ for 2030 by the Federal Ministry of Economics headed by Peter Altmaier. This text, too, is very explicit about the efficiency of the PRC’s ‘Made in China 2025’ agenda and the threat it poses to ‘the industrial and technological sovereignty of our economy’. And it breaks with the traditional liberal doctrine by calling for massive public interventions in protecting German and European economic interests against China’s state capitalism. It also makes it clear that ‘German industrial policy must always be European industrial policy’, and that ‘the European Union needs a Council of Industrial Ministers’ in the near future.

All this is rather new and might be interpreted as a “Mitterrand U-turn Moment”, though in reversal, and coming from Berlin. Nonetheless, it is perfectly in line with what leading voices in Germany have been requesting for some years now, especially after the purchase of the robotics firm Kuka by the Chinese company Midea in 2016. Economic leaders like Jörg Wuttke, for instance, the former president of the European Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, have repeatedly asked for a change in attitude among German policy-makers (see here or here). The same can be said about a new generation of researchers on contemporary China, who, according to a recent article by the GPPI’s Thorsten Benner, cast an increasingly critical and disillusioned eye on Xi Jinping’s neo-Maoist China rather than apply old perspectives of exotism and exceptionalism.

It is possible that Germany has been cradled until a few years ago in the certainty of systemic superiority, like in the good old times of the Cold War when « Wandel durch Annäherung » – change through rapprochement – was based on the firm conviction that its Social Market Economy, anchored in a liberal, pluralistic democracy, would simply win in the long run.

Not any more.

There seems to be a growing awareness in Germany today that what worked with its small Eastern German neighbours, will not be successful with the huge Chinese steamroller. Quite the contrary: it seems to be dawning on German policy-makers that in this new systemic competition, China might be the winner, by its sheer force and the ruthlessness of its governance. As Peter Altmaier has it in the above-mentioned paper: “this would have dramatic consequences for our way of life”.

Visibly inspired by a change of mind in Berlin, the new ‘strategic vision’ from Brussels suggests that, more than ever, the German political class, across the ‘Grand Coalition’, sees the European Union as an indispensable multiplier of its own power resources on the global stage. In a world of increased great power competition and big data, scale is again paramount. Germany cannot make it alone, it needs the full weight of Europe behind.

It also shows that in the quest for a ‘Europe that protects’, especially against external threats to its free-market model, the Merkel government is more aligned with Emmanuel Macron’s vision than it used to be (the words ‘protect’ or ‘protection’ appear thirteen times in the French president’s recent letter to all European citizens).

In this perspective, the unprecedented staging of Xi Jinping’s recent state visit to Paris, to which Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker were invited, definitely makes sense. And so does the new Treaty of Aachen (officially ‘Treaty on Franco-German Cooperation and Integration’) signed in January, and which may well turn out to be a new joint leadership impetus rather than a ‘weak’ and ‘exclusive’ symbol as some commentators wanted to have it).

It remains more than doubtful whether Germany and France will be able to get a significant majority of other member-states on board in their new China strategy. But while the UK is absorbed in its self-mutilation and the Italian government overbids itself in provocations for reasons of internal power struggles, the Franco-German tandem at least offers a tentative road map.

Having said that, Franco-German impetus is indispensable, but certainly not sufficient. If a European industrial policy is to work, it needs to be inclusive. The centres of decision making of the future European champions and innovation hubs cannot only be concentrated in Paris, Berlin, Stuttgart and Munich. The European “G2” needs to work with other key partners in the north and the south, starting with The Netherlands and Spain, and make sure it remains open to other countries who want to join in this more strategic endeavour. If it fails to be convincing, many will be tempted to abandon the EU core and drift towards Beijing and/or Washington.

Albrecht Sonntag is Professor at ESSCA School of Management
and Miguel Otero-Iglesias is Senior Analyst at Elcano Royal Institute

The post EU-China: the origin and future path of the new doctrine appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

All the past British Prime Ministers since 1957 wanted Britain to be a member of the European Community. Could they all have been wrong?

In the past 62 years, there’s only one Prime Minister who wants us to turn our back on Europe – the current incumbent, Theresa May.

(However, before she became Prime Minister, she told the nation that it was in Britain’s best interests to remain in the EU.)

Britain is now throwing away the combined wisdom of ten consecutive past Prime Ministers, all of whom wanted Britain to be in the European Community.

• PRIME MINISTER HAROLD MACMILLAN – CONSERVATIVE, 1957 to 1963

In 1961, Harold Macmillan applied for Britain to join the European Economic Community, just four years after it was formed with the signing of the Treaty of Rome by six other European countries.

Mr Macmillan explained to the nation:

“By negotiating for British membership of the European Economic Community and its Common Market, the present Conservative Government has taken what is perhaps the most fateful and forward looking policy decision in our peacetime history.

“We did not do so lightly. It was only after a searching study of all the facts that we came to accept this as the right and proper course.”

He added:

“By joining this vigorous and expanding community and becoming one of its leading members, as I am convinced we would, this country would not only gain a new stature in Europe, but also increase its standing and influence in the councils of the world.”

• PRIME MINISTER SIR ALEC DOUGLAS-HOME – CONSERVATIVE, 1963 to 1964

Mr Macmillan’s successor, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was briefly prime minister for one year from 1964. He supported Britain’s application to join the European Community. Sir Alec said:

“I have never made it a secret that I cannot see an alternative which would offer as good a prospect for this country as joining the EEC [European Community].”

As Foreign Secretary in Edward Heath’s government, Sir Alec said:

“I, too, have concluded through the years that membership of the Community would be advantageous to Britain.

“I almost add ‘necessary for Britain’, because I am acutely conscious that there are two questions which have to be asked : not only whether we should go in, but what is the prospect for Britain if we stay out.

“Those two questions have to be asked because, whether we are in or out, the Community goes on.”

• PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH – CONSERVATIVE, 1970 to 1974

It was Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who joined Britain to the European Community following the backing of Parliament after 300 hours of debate.

On the evening of 28 October 1971, Mr Heath addressed the House of Commons during the momentous debate on Britain joining the European Community. He said:

“Surely we must consider the consequences of staying out. We cannot delude ourselves that an early chance would be given us to take the decision again.

“We should be denying ourselves and succeeding generations the opportunities which are available to us in so many spheres; opportunities which we ourselves in this country have to seize”

Mr Heath added:

“..tonight when this House endorses this Motion many millions of people right across the world will rejoice that we have taken our rightful place in a truly United Europe.”

Parliament did endorse the Motion, and Britain subsequently joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973.

Mr Heath explained to the nation just before we joined:

“The community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of that term.

“It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues, important though these are — but also as the Paris Summit Meeting has demonstrated, with social issues which affect us all — environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.”

• PRIME MINISTER HAROLD WILSON – LABOUR, 1964 to 1970 and 1974 to 1976

In 1975, just two years after Britain joined the European Community (also then called ‘the Common Market’), Prime Minister Harold Wilson offered the nation a referendum on whether to remain a member.

In that referendum, Mr Wilson endorsed the ‘Yes’ vote which won by a landslide – by 67% to 33%.

Before the referendum, Mr Wilson told the House of Commons on 7 April 1975:

“My judgment, on an assessment of all that has been achieved and all that has changed, is that to remain in the Community is best for Britain, for Europe, for the Commonwealth, for the Third World and the wider world.”

During the referendum campaign, he said that he was recommending continued membership in “strong terms”.

He said that it would be “easier and more helpful” to solve Britain’s economic problems “if we are in the Market than if we were to be out of the Market.”

In recommending continued membership, Mr Wilson’s government sent a pamphlet to every household explaining the primary aims of the Common Market:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.

• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

• To promote growth and boost world trade.

• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

• To help maintain peace and freedom.

• PRIME MINISTER JAMES CALLAGHAN – LABOUR, 1976 to 1979

As Foreign Secretary during the first referendum on Europe in 1975, James Callaghan supported the ‘Yes’ vote for Britain’s continued membership of the European Community, having led the negotiations for Britain’s new terms of membership.

He said, “Britain is in, we should stay in” and he also said, “The Government asks you to vote ‘Yes’, clearly and unmistakeably.”

Although critical of the European Community’s “nonsense” agricultural policy, Mr Callaghan as Prime Minister supported continued membership. For his party’s 1979 manifesto he wrote:

“We are ready and willing to work with our European partners in closer unity.”

The manifesto called for Greece, Portugal, and Spain to “receive an early welcome into the Community” and for reforms to the European Community’s Common Agricultural Policy.

• PRIME MINISTER MARGARET THATCHER – CONSERVATIVE, 1979 to 1990

During the referendum campaign of 1975, the Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, strongly campaigned for Britain to remain a member of the European Community.

In a keynote speech at the time she said:

“It is not surprising that I, as Leader of the Conservative Party, should wish to give my wholehearted support to this campaign, for the Conservative Party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party.”

During her tenure as Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher is credited with pushing for, and making possible, the Single Market of Europe.

In September 1988 Mrs Thatcher gave a major speech about the future of Europe. She said:

“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”

She added:

“Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour.”

Crucially she said in support of the Single Market:

“By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere.”

• PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR – CONSERVATIVE, 1990 to 1997

It was Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, who negotiated and won Parliament’s backing to sign the Maastricht Treaty, that among other benefits gave us EU Citizenship rights allowing us to reside, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent.

At the Tory Party Conference of 1992, just six months after John Major won a surprise victory in the General Election, he said to the party faithful:

“I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe.”

And Mr Major warned about Britain walking away from Europe:

“We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending for ever our hopes of building the kind of Europe that we want.

“And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans.

“That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government is going to make.”

He added,

“Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60 per cent of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores, providing jobs for our people..

“But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century.”

• PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR – LABOUR, 1997 to 2007

Tony Blair, Labour’s longest-serving Prime Minister and, so far, the longest-serving Prime Minister of this century, was and still is a natural pro-European.

Mr Blair was recently described by Andrew Adonis, his former policy chief, as:

“The most instinctively pro-European prime minister since Edward Heath.”

In his memoirs, Mr Blair wrote:

“I regarded anti-European feeling as hopelessly, absurdly out of date and unrealistic.”

Mr Blair’s first manifesto, just before coming to power in 1997, promised that:

‘We will give Britain the leadership in Europe which Britain and Europe need.’

In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in 2005, Mr Blair said:

“I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been. My first vote was in 1975 in the British referendum on membership and I voted yes.”

He added that the European Union is:

“a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens. It always will be.”

He continued:

“I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market.”

Mr Blair concluded:

“The broad sweep of history is on the side of the EU. Countries round the world are coming together because in collective cooperation they increase individual strength.”

• PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN – LABOUR, 2007 to 2010

Gordon Brown was the first Prime Minister from a Scottish constituency since the Conservative’s Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1964. He came into power just as the world was going into economic meltdown.

But he saw the European Union as being uniquely placed to “lead the world through global crisis.”

In a speech to the European Parliament in 2009, Mr Brown said:

“Today we enjoy a Europe of peace and unity which will truly rank among the finest of human achievements and which is today a beacon of hope for the whole world.”

He was proud to say that Britain today was a country “not in Europe’s slipstream but firmly in its mainstream”.

Europe was uniquely placed to lead the world in meeting the challenges of globalisation precisely because it had achieved:

• “the greatest and biggest single market in the world”,

• “the most comprehensive framework of environmental protection”,

• “the world’s biggest programme of aid” and

• “the most comprehensive social protection anywhere in the world”.

• PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON – CONSERVATIVE, 2010 TO 2016

David Cameron was the only leader of a main political party to call for a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Community.

During the subsequent 2016 referendum campaign, he urged the country to vote to ‘Remain’ in the EU, which was his government’s official position.

In a keynote speech just days before the vote, Mr Cameron told the country:

“I feel so strongly that Britain should remain in Europe. Above all, it’s about our economy. It will be stronger if we stay. It will be weaker if we leave.”

He added:

“Britain is better off inside the EU than out on our own. At the heart of that is the Single Market – 500 million customers on our doorstep…a source of so many jobs, so much trade, and such a wealth of opportunity for our young people.

“Leaving the EU would put all of that at risk.

“Expert after expert – independent advisers, people whose job it is to warn Prime Ministers – have said it would shrink our economy.”

He concluded:

“I believe, very deeply, from my years of experience, that we’ll be stronger, we’ll be safer, we’ll be better off inside Europe. To put it as clearly as I can: our economic security is paramount.

“It is stronger if we stay. If we leave, we put it at risk.”

 ALL OF THESE 10 PRIME MINISTERS had good points and bad points, and policies that not everyone agreed with.

But during their premierships, they all without exception unanimously supported our membership of the European Community as being in Britain’s best interests.

Could they all have been wrong? Please think about it.

Just one Prime Minister (Theresa May), out of Britain’s eleven Prime Ministers of the past 62 years, wants us out of Europe, when all the other Prime Ministers wanted us in. * Before Harold Macmillan, Sir Anthony Eden was Conservative Prime Minister from 1955 until he resigned on 9 January 1957. He was a Eurosceptic who made the momentous decision for the UK not to be a founder member of the European Economic Community, when six other European countries signed the Treaty of Rome, just two months after Sir Anthony left office. * Before Sir Anthony Eden, Sir Winston Churchill was the Conservative Prime Minister from 1951 to 1955. In the immediate post-war years, he strongly promoted ‘a union of Europe as a whole’ and a ‘United States of Europe’ but he did not envisage at that time Britain joining such a union. There is compelling evidence, however, that Churchill – who is recognised as one of the 11 founders of the European Union – changed his mind in the late 1950s. Please see my separate report ‘Winston Churchill: A founder of the European Union’

• My campaign, Reasons2Remain, is three years old. 2-minute video:

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

 

The post Brexit means destroying the pro-Europe legacy of all past Prime Ministers since 1957 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.