Feed aggregator

Britain and China have been developing a closer relationship.

China and Great Britain have had a long but often fraught historical relationship with each other. The UK has been accused in recent years of sending the signal that it is willing to compromise its democratic values in its eagerness to deepen Chinese business ties with Britain.

Meanwhile, as a rising China has become the world’s second most powerful nation, the American-Chinese relationship has become more competitive recently, with pacts such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) seemingly designed to exclude China from membership. In turn China has launched its own charm offensive, the so-called ‘One Belt, One Road’ Eurasian development strategy, which it believes will see more Asian and Western countries follow in Britain’s footsteps and join Chinese-friendly institutions and trading blocs.

The UK wishes to participate in both China’s One Belt, One Road projects and remain close to America on matters such as European security or cross-Atlantic trade like the proposed Transatlantic Trade & Investment Pact (TTIP). While China’s rise is complicating the position of unbroken hegemonic authority the U.S. has enjoyed in East Asia for the last 70 years, Britain relinquished Hong Kong, its last significant position there, in 1997. It no longer possesses the strength to substantially alter the balance of power in the region and has more to gain from staying out of the numerous security disputes littering East Asia.

Above all the UK needs to avoid being dragged into controversies such as America’s hostility to China’s naval expansion in the South China Sea. Although Beijing’s position on the issue is in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has ratified, such territorial disputes should remain confined to the regional states which sustain them.

America and China will continue to compete with each other over security arrangements in the East Asian region and for economic influence globally. Despite the renewal of conflict in the Middle East and the return of Russian adventurism there and in Europe, in the longer term China is the state actor that matters and Asia is the battlefield of 21st century superpower rivalry.

East Asian relations in particular are often seen through a U.S.-China lens, with Beijing’s foreign policy interest towards European nations such as the UK thought of as being limited. Therefore the UK’s recent moves have surprised Western observers: London shocked its U.S. ally when it unexpectedly joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in March 2015. The UK government has made improving Sino-British relations a priority ever since 2013, when Beijing put UK-Chinese ties into the deep freeze in response to the Dalai Lama’s visit to Downing Street.

While the UK government has correctly gauged that China is an indispensable global partner, it has miscalculated the relative strengths of the two sides’ bargaining positions. The willingness of the UK government to allow Chinese investment into the UK in sectors such as nuclear power, ease visa restrictions, and reduce criticism of human rights has been causing increasing unease at home and abroad. As a second-tier global power Britain will exercise significant political influence with Beijing only if it works through its partners in Europe to negotiate the terms of its engagement there. The present solo negotiation with China, whilst trying ineffectually not to annoy its main America security partner, is a fragile policy which will crumble at the first serious crisis it encounters.

Instead the UK would achieve more of what it wants, and give away less political capital in the process, if it managed Anglo-Sino relations through a European mechanism such as the EU-China summits at Brussels. Much as Europe has come together to deal with Russia’s use of gas as a strategic weapon, this slow but collective foreign policy method is a surer way of dealing with an economically indispensable but politically awkward nation like China.

The UK remains a key financial centre for Chinese businesses and its firms still have close ties to the Chinese overseas territory of Hong Kong. But it is the European Union as a whole which is China’s largest trading partner, and Beijing is the EU’s second largest partner after the US. After Asia, Europe was Chinese people’s biggest destination for overseas travel, receiving 3.43 million Chinese visitors, an increase of 10.4%.

The EU has become China’s biggest source of imports, now trading at well over €1 billion a day. In short it is Europe as a whole, rather than any individual member state, which is an influential partner in Chinese eyes. While China is trying to diversify its economy away from reliance on manufacturing, the size of the EU’s market makes it too important for Beijing to simply ignore.

Britain has already been a great beneficiary of China’s economic rise over the past three decades and it is in the UK’s national interest for this blossoming relationship to continue. Over ten years alone imports grew from £11.4 billion in 2004, to £37.6 billion in 2014. China has become the UK’s second largest import partner behind America, now accounting for 7.0% of all UK imports in 2014, compared with just 3.3% in 2004.

As Beijing opens up its service sector to foreign investors, analysts have predicted Britain’s foreign direct investment (FDI) assets in China could rise hugely in worth from £6.6 billion in 2014 to a possible £25.6 billion by 2020. Indeed the UK’s Chancellor George Osborne has set himself a target of making China Britain’s second biggest trading partner by 2025.

China and Britain therefore have a joint interest in developing greater Sino-EU integration, despite the history of trading rows between the trading bloc and the superpower. The UK has been supporting Chinese efforts to develop the yuan as global trading currency, anticipating British financial services will be one of the main beneficiaries of the appearance of off-shore yuan trading markets.

Reflecting this, the UK government has proposed schemes to study connecting the stock markets in Shanghai and London, and to reach a free-trade pact between Beijing and the EU. Analysts speculate that with the UK’s specialization in financial services, health care, clean technology and life sciences, Britain is well positioned to gain from Beijing’s shift towards a more services- and consumption-based economy if Britain can leverage its position within the EU to tie China and Europe closer together.

By choosing the European route instead of the bilateral one to negotiate its trading relationship with Beijing the UK maximizes its leverage with both its European partners and China, which is useful for a medium-sized ex-colonial power. By minimizing the concessions it needs to make to China on sensitive issues such as Tibet or Xinjiang, Britain can also avoid alienating other important partners like Washington.

Irritants such as the long-running dispute over the South China Sea have been inflaming the US-Sino discourse again and hostile attitudes are always easy to find in a period in which US politicians are running for the Presidency. Beijing has also complicated matters for itself by adopting a strident and an uncompromising tone over its territorial issues that has alarmed its neighbors and international opinion in recent years.

China remains a difficult nation for Western governments to deal with politically, but a vital one for their companies and economies. The greatest diplomatic challenge for the EU in the 21st century will be how to harmonize Chinese-European relations without alienating America. London can play a pivotal role in this as the channel through which China’s currency and businesses reach the global status that its leaders crave for reasons of national prestige.

But in order to have the political muscle to do so it will have to work with other European leaders on the continent instead of seeing them as competitors for Chinese investment. For this reason Britain’s leaders may find their China goals achievable only if they focus their flexible bargaining skills much closer to home and ignore the temptations to head straight to Beijing to cut deals ahead of their European partners and rivals.

Le programme de travail de Eulogos pour l’année qui vient est de présenter de façon plus juste, d’analyser de façon plus pertinente, les discours eurosceptiques, europhobes et populistes : entendre, comprendre et répondre ! C’est le mot d’ordre que lance Eulogos pour combattre ce type de discours. C’est parce qu’on ne dit rien que les autres se permettent tout. Il faut hausser le son ! démonter cette rhétorique.

Mais, avant toute chose, il faut présenter une vision de l’Europe mobilisatrice, comme vient de le faire de façon si talentueuse, pour son pays, Angela Merkel, le 14 décembre, devant le Congrès de son parti, l’Union chrétienne-démocrate (CDU). Il n’est pas nécessaire de la paraphraser, simplement rapporter ses propos : elle souhaite un pays « ouvert, curieux, tolérant, passionnant, possédant une forte identité (…) qui voie aussi le monde avec les yeux des autres, qui aide les personnes en situation de détresse qui, confiant en ses capacités, apporte sa contribution à la sécurité, à la paix et qui contribue à ce que la mondialisation puisse être gérée de façon juste ». Que l’Europe puisse montrer que, sous sa gouverne, elle est capable de relever ce défi comme elle a su le faire pour renaître des décombres de 1945.

La force des eurosceptiques et europhobes est d’adosser leurs propositions sur une conception du monde, fausse mais cohérente. La façon dont le débat sur l’Europe est mené contribue à donner l’impression que tous les Européens parlent comme les europhobes et les eurosceptiques : ces derniers ont d’abord imposé leur vocabulaire, leur thématique car les pro-européens ont cessé de se battre sur les mots et pour les mots.

À ce stade, nous n’avons pas d’autre ambition que d’engager le débat et d’y faire participer le plus grand nombre des personnes. L’analyse de la rhétorique antieuropéenne prend tout son sens et c’est à cela qu’appelle Eulogos. Les bons scores des eurosceptiques, europhobes et populistes marquent d’abord l’échec des stratégies de diabolisation et de dénigrement, qui restent sans effet : chômage, ras-le-bol fiscal, bouleversements géopolitiques aux portes de l’Europe et attentats islamistes n’expliquent pas tout. Plus grave, le doute s’est installé sur la capacité des forces politiques, sociales culturelles, religieuses… traditionnelles à entendre les citoyens. On inquiète sans réellement informer.

C’est à ce stade qu’intervient notre volonté de jouer sur cette rhétorique qui varie d’un pays à l’autre, d’un parti à un autre, d’un groupe à un autre. Il faut commencer par analyser ces rhétoriques pour pouvoir ensuite y faire face : « entendre, comprendre répondre », c’est le triptyque imaginé par une jeune universitaire, Amélie Ancelle, qui a étudié le phénomène pour la France et pour deux cas, Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Son travail universitaire constitue le point de départ de notre réflexion et l’embryon d’une méthodologie à mettre en œuvre après son approfondissement .

« La rhétorique, nous dit-elle, est un élément majeur dans la vie politique d’aujourd’hui, malgré la connotation péjorative qu’elle revêt. C’est la parole qui crée le lien entre le politique et le citoyen, instaure la confiance et laisse parfois place à la manipulation. L’Union européenne n’échappe pas à la règle. Les résultats des élections de mai 2014 ont vu nombre de partis eurosceptiques tenir le haut du pavé, la France en tête. Les deux candidats français qui regroupent les qualificatifs d’eurosceptiques et de rhéteurs sont les deux extrêmes de l’échiquier politique : Marine Le Pen au Front National, Jean-Luc Mélenchon au Front de Gauche. Ils manient les mots avec précision, savent se mettre en scène et parviennent à retourner les valeurs européennes contre l’UE elle-même.

Avant d’étudier les discours comme constructions politiques, c’est leur étude en tant que constructions et performances rhétoriques qui permet de mettre en exergue les caractéristiques du discours eurosceptique. Le travail de l’image, de la personnalité et de la construction d’un système de valeurs en creux par rapport à l’UE sont autant de moyens de créer du lien avec la foule, un sentiment de proximité face à l’austérité institutionnelle. Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon dépassent le cadre politique pour se diriger vers la sphère émotionnelle. Dès lors, la réflexion purement politique et rationnelle n’est plus – elle devient hybride. Ce n’est plus à la logique qu’il est fait appel, mais à des sentiments : la peur et le ressentiment pour le Front National, l’indignation pour le Front de Gauche. Si la volonté de montrer l’UE comme porteuse de valeurs incompatibles avec les idéaux universels se retrouve chez les deux candidats, leurs effets produits sur l’auditoire sont radicalement différents : l’une fait régner la prostration, l’autre l’incitation à l’action. Au vu des résultats des élections et de la crise politique que traverse depuis lors l’Union, déceler les ressorts de l’Euroscepticisme pour lui opposer plus efficacement une réponse s’avère crucial.

Autant qu’il peut être une menace, le langage peut tout autant être une source de réconfort, d’espoir et de bataille face à une tendance qui prend de l’ampleur, en France comme ailleurs. C’est pourquoi se donner les armes pour l’étudier, c’est se donner la capacité de mieux comprendre un phénomène et de mieux y répondre. Comment cela peut-il prendre forme du point de vue de la réponse politique ?

Bien sûr, la réponse qui vient immédiatement à l’esprit, c’est la réponse éducative. La République forme ses citoyens à la culture commune ; aujourd’hui, celle-ci dépasse les frontières françaises. C’est la première mesure politique qui puisse être prise rapidement et impacter directement la population et les futurs citoyens. Sensibiliser la jeunesse à l’Europe, c’est lui montrer que l’UE, c’est certes Erasmus, mais plus encore ; c’est regarder vers le futur. Les interventions dans les écoles devraient se multiplier : professionnels, intellectuels, même fonctionnaires européens doivent venir incarner cette réalité, et pas seulement dans les écoles d’élites. Organiser si possible des visites des institutions, ou au moins dédier une partie du programme à l’Union européenne en tant que réalité, en tant que construction politique inédite et pleine de possibilités – voilà comment éveiller les consciences. Simplement mentionner des dates, privées de toute incarnation dans un contexte global, c’est conforter les esprits dans l’idée que l’UE n’est qu’une construction abstraite qui se résume à des signatures de traités et à la possibilité de passer un an à l’étranger.

Les politiques doivent donc travailler à une réponse complexe face aux attaques eurosceptiques, et cela implique leur attitude même. Aussi étrange que cela puisse paraître c’est peut-être d’abord une réponse humaine qu’il leur faut apporter. Les sentiments créés par les Eurosceptiques ne peuvent être ignorés, et font parfois une impression bien plus forte qu’un discours raisonné. Cette réponse humaine ne doit cependant pas être teintée d’arguments politiques. L’honnêteté intellectuelle oblige à mélanger le moins possible les registres : l’émotion reste l’émotion, l’argumentaire politique reste l’argumentaire politique. Au ressentiment, il faut opposer les grands moments de communion de l’Union européenne, qui passe malheureusement bien plus souvent dans les moments de drames et de deuils. Il faut opposer la force de l’union à l’isolement du prostré. La première réponse aux maux inquiétants et inquiets des eurosceptiques, ce sont les mots rassurants et motivés des porteurs de l’Europe.

Maintenant, les mots ne suffisent pas pour convaincre en politique ; des actions totalement incarnées dans la sphère de la chose publique peuvent tout à fait créer, implicitement, des sentiments positifs chez les citoyens. La première découle directement du besoin de réponse humaine : mêler sentiments et politique européenne ne fait pas bon ménage. Il faut, certes, rassurer les citoyens en s’octroyant des temps de communion sur un socle de valeurs et d’idéaux européens communs. Mais il faut surtout se dégager de la tendance à faire de l’Union européenne le parfait bouc émissaire ; les Eurosceptiques ne sont pas les seuls à blâmer dans ce cas. En effet, accuser l’Europe dès qu’un élément de la politique nationale ne fonctionne pas permet peut-être de se dédouaner et de retrouver un certain crédit auprès des électeurs, mais c’est surtout faire le jeu des détracteurs de l’Europe. En effet, comment comprendre que l’on souhaite s’investir de plus en plus dans une Europe qui semble pourtant être la cause des problèmes économiques, financiers, politiques et migratoires de l’État ? Les dirigeants politiques doivent commencer à penser ensemble, globalement, et pas uniquement à l’intérieur de leurs frontières. Il faut écarter l’image de menace que représente l’UE dans beaucoup trop d’esprits, y compris parfois même dans ceux des dirigeants. Sans quoi ces derniers fourniront sans cesse du grain à moudre aux Eurosceptiques, et continueront à se saborder.

À l’attitude des dirigeants s’ajoute le besoin de dépasser une certaine pudeur dans la représentation officielle de l’Europe au sein du gouvernement. Pour lors, le Secrétaire d’État aux Affaires européennes, Monsieur Harlem Désir, n’a qu’une moindre visibilité, autant auprès de ses collègues qu’auprès des citoyens. Dans l’ombre du ministre des Affaires étrangères, il est relégué au second rang. Comme si l’Union ne faisait certes pas partie de l’étranger, mais surtout comme si les relations qui unissaient le gouvernement à l’Europe étaient moindres, comparées à ce qu’offre le reste du monde. Pour preuve, le Secrétaire d’État n’est presque jamais cité dans les discours de Madame Le Pen ou de Monsieur Mélenchon, excepté pour souligner son absence et le manque de visibilité de résultats et d’activité. Encore une fois, c’est donner là des arguments aux Eurosceptiques qui n’ont même pas besoin de les fabriquer : « regardez, même au sein du gouvernement, l’Europe occupe une place mineure, effacée. Pourquoi nous embarrasser à y rester, l’État pourrait faire là des économies ». Or, c’est précisément en donnant un rôle plus important à la personne en charge des affaires européennes que non seulement le sens et l’intérêt du projet européen vont se faire plus grand, mais c’est aussi la crédibilité de cette implication et de ces investissements qui vont en ressortir. Et la crédibilité permet, entre autres, de combattre le doute et le ressentiment.

Le discours eurosceptique français n’a rien inventé. Les procédés rhétoriques sont vieux de plus de deux mille ans, leurs arguments sont presque tous des détournements d’attitudes de personnalités politiques impliquées dans l’Europe. Là où réside la difficulté, c’est dans la manière de combattre ce discours : le combat rhétorique nécessite une éternelle réinvention, appelle une dynamique créatrice. Sortir de sa zone de confort, c’est prendre par surprise les Eurosceptiques, et fragiliser leur argumentaire qui repose sur des idées et valeurs ancrées dans les esprits. Cela doit nécessairement passer par le changement de paradigme et la prise de décisions originales. Prendre à la légère les discours eurosceptiques et ne leur opposer que moquerie et dénigrement, ce n’est pas s’attaquer au fond du problème. C’est un combat permanent, qui nécessite prise de conscience et courage. Sans quoi la vague anti-Europe risque de faire chavirer plus d’un navire qui se croit insubmersible. ».

 

Voilà les premiers éléments que nous fournit Amélie Ancelle pour notre réflexion. Ils doivent être approfondis, complétés, diversifiés. Les exemples concrets doivent être multipliés. C’est ce à quoi nous vous invitons. Mais ce travail de recensement et d’analyse ne se suffit pas à lui-même ; il doit être suivi d’un travail de réplique, de contestation, de réfutation, et cela au jour le jour. C’est un travail de grande ampleur, permanent, exigeant. Personne n’a le monopole de l’entreprise et encore moins sa propriété, mais il faut bien que quelqu’un commence et donne le coup d’envoi.

Réagissez, proposez. Coalisons nos efforts, mutualisons nos moyens. La patrie européenne est en danger !

N’hésitez pas à demander le travail de recherche de Amélie Ancelle (Amelie.Ancelle@gmail.com)

 

Classé dans:Citoyenneté européenne

The English make up 85% of the UK’s population, with London home to a population equal to that of Scotland and Wales combined and an economy closely linked to Europe. But the capital and its country are at odds when it comes to Europe. Analysing patterns and differences of opinion in England, and especially the outlook of Londoners, is therefore vital to understanding how the UK will vote in the forthcoming referendum – and how the UK’s countries, regions and peoples will deal with the outcome.

Back in January 2013, when David Cameron committed a future Conservative government to holding an in/out referendum on the EU membership, he made clear that ‘it is time to settle this European question in British politics’. Today, one of the problems Cameron faces is that his European question is a multifaceted one that is more than to be or not to be in Europe. Look into what fuels the UK’s tensions with the rest of the EU and you soon find yourself grappling with such questions as the future place in the UK of both England and London. Because of its size, it will be in England where the referendum is largely won or lost. As the capital city and the UK’s biggest and richest region, what the result could mean for London will be a defining issue of the campaign and how the UK deals with the result.

A closer look at the Union

Breakdowns of the UK’s regional political differences often divide the Union into its four parts. The four may be equal constitutionally, but nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to population and economy. As the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish know only too well, England dominates the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

*UK population mid-2014 (source here)

Population (2013) GVA Public expenditure per head Variation from expenditure average £ bn %UK £ per head Variation England 53,865,817 1,298 86.5% 24,091 103.0 £8,678 97 North East 2,610,481 45 3.0% 17,381 74.3 £9,576 107 North West 7,103,260 142 9.4% 19,937 85.2 £9,276 104 Y’shire/Humber 5,337,710 102 6.8% 19,053 81.4 £8,679 97 East Midlands 4,598,729 89 5.9% 19,317 82.6 £8,219 92 West Midlands 5,674,712 110 7.4% 19,428 83.0 £8,641 97 East England 5,954,169 130 8.7% 21,897 93.6 £7,950 89 London 8,416,535 338 22.6% 40,215 171.9 £9,866 110 South East 8,792,626 227 15.2% 25,843 110.5 £7,756 87 South West 5,377,595 114 7.6% 21,163 90.5 £8,336 93 N Ireland 1,829,725 33 2.2% 17,948 76.7 £10,961 123 Scotland 5,327,700 117 7.8% 21,982 94.0 £10,275 115 Wales 3,082,412 52 3.5% 16,893 72.2 £9,924 111 UK 64,105,654 1500 100% 23,394 100 £8,936 100

 

*UK Regions and Nations: Populations, Gross Value Added, and Public Expenditure per head around the UK in 2013 and 2014 (source here)

Furthermore we rarely see breakdowns of opinions across England. This is despite 54.3 million English inhabiting a country home to a wealth of cultures, economies, and political outlooks. To be fair, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are not single homogenous groups. But the debate sometimes risks overlooking differences within the English public opinion. Data (albeit to 2012) drawn from the British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey shows that support for the EU can vary across the UK and England.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS EU MEMBERSHIP BY REGION

Region

Response

option East Anglia (%)

East Midlands

(%)

Greater London

(%)

North

(%)

North West

(%)

Scotland

(%)

South East

(%)

South West

(%)

Wales

(%)

West Midlands

(%)

Yorkshire and Humberside

(%) Total (%) Strongly approve 11.3 9.4 18.1 10.6 11.3 15.4 10.7 10.9 11.9 10.7 10.9 12.0 Approve 33.3 35.0 40.5 37.8 37.1 43.7 36.0 34.6 40.7 35.8 36.1 37.2 Disapprove 33.6 33.6 25.8 33.2 32.0 26.3 32.7 32.5 29.8 31.9 32.9 31.2 Strongly disapprove 21.9 22.0 15.6 18.4 19.6 14.7 20.5 22.0 17.6 21.6 20.1 19.5

 

Question wording: ’Overall, do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Britain’s membership in the European Union?’ Source: Source: British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey, June 2005-December 2012 (pooled monthly cross-sectional surveys). Weighted data.

*“Overall, do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Britain’s membership in the European Union?”

Note: The data were provided by Dr Ben Clements and come from the British Election Study Continuous Monitoring Survey (BES CMS), based on the pooled June 2005-December 2012 monthly cross-sectional surveys (weighted data). The BES CMS dataset was obtained from the main BES 2009/10 project website.

Amongst the many differences that criss-cross England, London can make a fair claim to being so different as to be the UK’s undiscovered country. It has its own regional government in the form of the Greater London Authority and a Mayor. Its population will within a few years pass the 10 million mark, and if measured by metro area already stands at more than 14 million. That population is also Britain’s most diverse, with 36.7% Londoners born outside the UK, a figure that is growing. Such a fast growing and diverse population makes for distinct social and welfare challenges in terms of housing, policing, the environment and transport. Its economy – 22.6% of all of the UK’s generated by 13.1% of the population – races ahead of the rest of the UK and makes it one of the richest places in Europe and the world. As the BBC’s Robert Peston once argued when explaining why UKIP doesn’t do well in London:

Much of the rest of the UK sees globalisation and its manifestations – such as immigration – as disempowering, impoverishing and a threat. Whereas for Londoners, globalisation is an economic competition they are apparently winning.

London then is an English, British, European and international metropolis, booming thanks to its central place in the UK, Europe and the world.

The English Question and Europe

Despite people across the UK sharing some common concerns about the EU, polling data shows the English as a whole to be the most Eurosceptic of the four parts of the UK. No surprise then that UKIP scored well in large areas of England during the 2015 General Election, securing 14.1% of English votes and becoming the UK’s third most popular party by votes. It should also be noted that UKIP secured 13.6% in Wales, reminding us that other parts of the UK are not the home of pro-Europeanism as some might like to believe they are. Nevertheless, compared to the 1975 referendum when England was home to the most pro-European parts of the UK, today it is undeniably home to the parts that are the most Eurosceptic.

This can be put down to a number of reasons, not least of which is the failure of political parties in England, compared to those in the other three parts of the UK, to offer a pro-European message. It can also be attributed to the failure of the political parties to grapple with changes in English identity, with there being an often-noted connection between Euroscepticism and English nationalism. As Ben Wellings has argued: ‘Euroscepticism is the most formed-up expression of English grievance and an ideology that provides the political content for English nationalism.’

Surveys and analyses have shown an evolving sense of English nationalism is connected to feelings about an unfair treatment of England compared to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. With no English Parliament or substantial regional governments of its own (excluding Greater London), England is run by a UK government based in London that can seem distant and beholden to other interests whether they be international ones or of the other parts of the UK. UKIP has been able to tap into this.

The European question in some areas of England is therefore not simply one of distrust of globalisation or the EU; it is also about negative views of a UK state and political parties that can seem weak, disinterested or beholden to others.

The London Question and Europe

Londoners are not known for being ‘little Englanders’. This is in no small part a result of Londoners being the least ‘English’ in England and the most likely to identify themselves as ‘British’ (according to the 2011 census). Its diverse population, economics and liberal politics make it a metropolis where parties such as UKIP struggle to make much headway. In the 2015 General Election UKIP secured 8.1% of Londoners votes, an improvement on its previous results but still its second lowest performance in the UK after Scotland. Nevertheless, UKIP has found success in some of the outer boroughs, especially in the east. That London suffers from major social, economic and community problems was all too clear during the 2011 London riots. While immigration is an issue, since the 1980s immigration has been key to the metropolis rebounding from its post-war decline. London’s Eurosceptic Mayor, Boris Johnson, has been amongst the UK’s most pro-immigration politicians.

A large part of the material wealth of London is tied to the economic vibrancy of the European market as part of wider transatlantic and global markets. Britain might not be in the euro, but that does not stop London handling more euro foreign-exchanges than the eurozone combined. Nor does it stop London being the headquarters of one hundred of Europe’s top 500 companies. Companies such as Goldman Sachs and the Lord Mayor of London have warned of the cost to London and the UK of an exit from the EU. The Mayor of London’s own 2014 report into Brexit and London – ‘The Europe Report: a win-win situation’ – might have argued that whatever the referendum outcome, London could win in varying ways (although see here for a critique). But even it made clear that close relations with the EU would be vital for any post-exit London.

London’s more pro-European outlook, its privileged position within the UK, unique population and identity have not passed unnoticed. ‘London’ has become a by-word for something that is distant, strange and out of control, similar to Brussels across the EU or Washington D.C. in the USA. While London has long been a place slightly apart from the rest of Britain, today people across the UK, and especially England, increasingly view London as a place far removed from the country they feel they inhabit. Suzanne Evans, a former Conservative councillor for Merton who defected to UKIP but lost her seat in the 2014 local elections, blamed UKIP’s poor performance in London on its young, educated, cultured, media-savvy population that can’t understand the heartache felt by the rest of the country. This might have been picked over for her insinuation that UKIP supporters elsewhere are old, not educated (to a certain extent Londoners are indeed younger and on average better qualified) or cultured and that the ‘media-savvy’ were somehow duped by media criticism of UKIP. But her warning that London is becoming a place apart from the rest of the UK has been echoed elsewhere. The EU referendum has the potential to highlight the differences between the capital city and its country and the need for this to be addressed.

A Kingdom of Many Parts

There can be little doubt that the UK’s referendum could have important implications for different parts of the UK. Most notably, Scotland’s place in the union and the Northern Ireland peace process could be changed. But by focusing on such areas we are at risk of missing the larger picture of what the result could mean for the place of England and London in the Union. It will be in England that the referendum is won or lost, and it will be in London and its relationship with England and the UK that we will see some of the most important consequences of the referendum result.

Note: this piece first appeared on the LSE’s Brexit Vote blog.

The post A Kingdom of Many Parts: England, London, the UK, and the EU appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Ce mardi matin, ballotté par une mer agitée et le vent puissant, le Vindilis, qui effectue la liaison entre Belle-Ile et Quiberon, a heurté le quai de Port-Maria, à Quiberon. 

• Lire la suite de Quiberon : Le Vindilis heurte un quai

Ungarn hatte als erstes EU-Mitgliedsland angesichts der Flüchtlingskrise radikal mit dem Geist von Schengen gebrochen und neue Grenzen errichtet.…

Source : © Union européenne, 2015 - PE

La présidence algérienne a dévoilé mardi son projet de réforme de la Constitution qui propose notamment de limiter le mandat présidentiel à deux quinquennats. L'opposition a dénoncé des offres "en trompe-l’œil".

Du 30 novembre au 14 décembre dernier, l’exercice MASSILIA a mobilisé 350 militaires d’active et de réserve. La manœuvre a pour objectif de familiariser les militaires de l’état-major de force n° 3 (EMF3) de Marseille avec les procédures d’engagement des troupes sur les différents théâtres d’opérations extérieures comme BARKHANE ou intérieures comme SENTINELLE.

Sign up to the FT’s new daily Brussels briefing

Thus far, Brussels appears more willing to take on the Poles than it was the Hungarians. Just days after the new media law was introduced, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, has announced he will hold a debate on the Polish moves at the commission’s weekly meeting next week.

Read more

 

Incumbents are in trouble these days. The opposition is winning, from Argentina’s Macri, Venezuela’s MUD to Nigeria’s Buhari. But the opposition who takes power rarely is able to maintain its grip on it for more than a few months; France’s Hollande and Egypt’s Morsi are examples. Politics is not what it used to be: power has become more elusive than ever before.

When oppositions win by significant margin, the  tendency is for sweeping changes. The previous regime’s symbols are torn down. Its leaders are investigated, arrested and prosecuted for corruption. Policies are thrown out the window. New constitutions are drafted and the previous regime is kept out of politics.

Instant action to prove that all of the previous regime’s wrongdoings will be wiped off and that the new government will turn a brand new chapter is the norm. This has happened in Sri Lanka since the Mahinda Rajapakse regime was toppled by Maithripala Sirisena on January 8th. Over the past year, Sirisena has realized that turning the page is never as easy as they promised on the political stage.

However in stark contrast to the situation in Sri Lanka, Myanmar has taken a different path thanks to Nobel Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. Her National League for Democracy (NLD) won 77% of the upper and lower house seats that were contested. In the end, the NLD won 124/224 in the House of Nationalities (Amyotha Hluttaw) and 255/440 in the House of Representatives (Pyithu Hluttaw).

This gives them the majority required to appoint the President and Vice-President and pass new legislature without compromise by overcoming the military plus USDP bloc. But surprisingly Suu Kyi has chosen to compromise with the incumbent military-led regime rather than using her newly found power to wipe the slate clean.

Some may find this surprising and even claim that she is not using the mandate provided to her with utmost confidence by the people of Myanmar for change; change that removes the military from the machine of governance. But she is following the strategy that will bring about the best for her country and people.

Promoting pragmatism and realism might stem from her genes and from the lessons learned in 15 years of house arrest. Her genes because her father, also fathered her nation—the Union of Burma—bringing together a country divided between various factions during the colonial era and World War II. He achieved it through sheer pragmatism, not through a democratic mandate. If Aung San had not been assassinated, maybe Myanmar’s fate would have been much different today.

Now, his daughter has the chance to right the wrongs. But it cannot be done overnight. It will take decades and she knows it. She also knows that her personal fame and charisma can be utilized to sustain the popular mandate required for political stability.

Suu Kyi’s realism has sometimes looked liked ignorance and cruelty. She remained steadfastly silent over the plight of the Muslim Rohingyas, fearful of harming the Buddhist majority vote. Maybe she knew that the only way to make things better for the Rohingyas in the long run was to ensure she won by a large margin and change the governance structure for the better.

She also refrained from giving any specific policy promises on how she will improve Myanmar’s situation. She did not promise to prosecute the military for its crimes or corruption. She only asked for a chance to change things. This is in stark contrast to Sri Lanka, where specific promises of prosecution against graft of the previous regime and more welfare to the people have put the new regime between a rock and a hard place. Suu Kyi is in a hard place but she does not have a rock rolling towards her. She has the liberty to chart a course without breaking any electoral promises.

Currently she is holding ‘transition talks’ with the military (Tatmadev in Burmese) and the leaders of the incumbent regime. Officially the NLD will take over power in February. This prudent act is aided by both Suu Kyi’s pragmatism and, strangely, the military-drafted constitution. The constitution ensured that the new government cannot take over power immediately after an election, and that the military had a strong say in government despite a massive electoral loss. It was this guarantee of holding on to a piece of the pie after the transition that ensured a smooth transition.

Worldwide, we have seen bloody transitions of power from autocracy to democracy. Most were bloody because idealism wanted to chase away evil completely. The de-Baathification in Iraq post-2003 is a very good example. In the attempt to create a democratic Iraq, Baathists were completely removed from every level of governance in the country; from military to bureaucracy. The results has been a weak, unprofessional army and government agencies that are unable to provide public services. The Baathists ended up leading insurgent groups and collaborating with ISIS.

Democracy is yet to take root in Myanmar. One successful election that gives a landslide victory to one party thanks to the charisma of one individual is hardly democracy. Democracy needs to deepen. For that, stability must prevail and people need to feel secure. Only then will the NLD get its legitimacy and politicians will be seen in a more positive light. This is a vital issue if political entrepreneurship is to happen in the future.

The NLD is used to being in the opposition, rallying public rage against the Tatmadaw. Its not used to governing a country of 50 million people. Even Suu Kyi has not been in the role of an administrator for a long time. Her work at the UN was decades ago.

The Tatmadaw and USDP have individuals well-versed in the intricacies of governance. Their methods might have been flawed at times, but their experience and their connections are vital.

Suu Kyi will have to continue to employ a strict sense of pragmatism. Acting on emotions and passions is a nonviable option. Idealism is a flawed approach to apply in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw and the USDP have committed crimes and atrocities. They have looted the country’s wealth and resources. Over time investigations will have to be carried out on those matters.

But not everyone will be prosecuted. Not every war criminal who harmed minorities can be prosecuted. Some figures with a considerable grasp on power cannot be simply chased out of power. If Suu Kyi tries that, she might end up being the devil she is fighting. Surely Kissinger and Bismark would support this point of view. As a nation matures it needs pragmatic leadership and realist policies. Suu Kyi seems to have understood that.

Dans le but de progresser dans la lutte contre les engins explosifs improvisés, un laboratoire d’expertise français a été créé il y a un an. Déployé pour la première fois en opération extérieure en novembre et décembre 2015, il apporte son expertise à la force Barkhane.

Színházi információs portált hozott létre a TINFO.

Depuis les attentats du 13 novembre à Paris, la France a rétabli les contrôles d'identité sur l'ensemble de ses frontières nationales, suspendant pour une durée indéterminée la libre circulation à l'intérieur même de l'espace Schengen. Peu de temps auparavant, plusieurs pays avaient instauré de telles mesures pour tenter de freiner l'arrivée de migrants. Visualisez sur notre carte les frontières qui font aujourd'hui l'objet de ces contrôles.

Der britische Premierminister David Cameron will seine Minister in der Frage eines EU-Austritts nicht unter Kabinetts-disziplin stellen. Das kündigte…

Les réservistes et leurs associations constituent des relais essentiels au renforcement du lien entre la nation et les forces armées. L'armée de l'air s'efforce, à tous ses échelons et dans toute la mesure du possible, de faciliter leurs actions, à l’instar de celles menées par l’Association nationale des officiers de réserve de l’armée de l’air (ANORAA) ou par l’Association nationale des sous-officiers de réserve de l’armée de l’air (ANSORAA).

Februárban kerül sor az ugandai elnökválasztásra, így az idő teltével egyre jobban felpörög a kampány, illetve az ellenzék ellehetetlenítésének kísérletei.

C'est avec une réelle émotion que nous apprenons le décès d'André Turcat, survenu le 4 janvier 2016.

Les Africains au Royaume-Uni payent des fortunes pour rapatrier leurs proches décédés, un système que certains jugent dépassé