European Union

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

With two weeks left before U.K’s referendum on EU membership polls are getting attention, but are hardly illuminating.

Two polls were published on Sunday, one by the Sunday Times, one by The Observer.

The Sunday Times polls has Leave 1% ahead (YouGov); the Observer has Remain 2% in the lead (Opinium). On Friday, the Independent published a poll (ORB) that gave Leave a resounding 10% lead (ORB: 55-45%); the Independent poll did not allow undecided voters to weigh in the result and was an online poll.

Telephone polls favor Remain; internet polls either favor Leave or have the two sides neck-and-neck. The discrepancy of results between the two methodologies is smaller but remains significant. The debate on methodology is heated because of polling failure during the general elections.

All polls find there will be extremely high participation, BBC reports; some polls suggest that Leave has more motivated voters likely to show up on Election Day, France 24 reported on Friday.

And at least three polls suggest that for those who support Leave immigration is the most important issue, followed by the economy.

(BBC, The Independent, Sunday Times, France 24, Reuters)

The post UK Referendum polls: online Leave, by phone Remain appeared first on New Europe.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

The global number of nuclear warheads dropped last year, though none of the nine nuclear powers showed any signs of giving up their atomic weapons, an arms watchdog said Monday.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says in its annual report on June 13 that there were 455 fewer nuclear warheads at the start of 2016 among nine nuclear states than a year earlier.

It said the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea had a total of 15,395 nuclear warheads at the start of 2016, including 4,120 that were deployed operationally.

It said the total number of nuclear warheads in those countries at the start of 2015 was 15,850.

Of those 4,120 were deployed warheads, meaning warheads placed on missiles or on bases with operational forces. All of those warheads were deployed by the U.S., Russia, Britain and France, SIPRI said.

The institute said global nuclear arsenals have been shrinking since their Cold War-peak of nearly 70,000 warheads in the mid-1980s, mainly due to sharp cuts in Russian and U.S. nuclear forces.

“At the same time, both Russia and the USA have extensive and expensive nuclear modernization programs under way,” SIPRI said.

Countries with much smaller nuclear arsenals have started to deploy new delivery systems or announced their intention to do so, the report said, highlighting China, India and Pakistan.

It said that Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons, is testing “a long-range nuclear-capable ballistic missile.”

North Korea is believed to have built up to 10 warheads, but it remains unclear whether the reclusive communist country has produced or deployed any operational weapons, SIPRI said.

“North Korea claims to have designed and built a nuclear warhead that is sufficiently compact and robust for delivery by a ballistic missile,” the report said. “However, there is no open-source evidence to indicate whether it has actually done so.”

SIPRI is a Stockholm-based independent think tank, partly funded by the Swedish government. Created in 1966, its research is focused on global security, arms control and disarmament. (with AP, Reuters)

The post US, Russia reducing their nuclear arsenal: SIPRI report appeared first on New Europe.

108shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Darius Vâlcov, Minister of Finance

 

Dan Șova, Minister of Transport

 

Dan Voiculescu, media mogul, senator, head of the Conservative Party

 

Dan Diaconescu, journalist, TV presenter, businessman, media mogul and founder of the now defunct People’s Party – Dan Diaconescu

 

Elena Udrea, Minister of Regional Development and Tourism, 2014 presidential candidate

 

George Becali, former MEP, businessman

 

Marian Vanghelie, Mayor of Bucharest’s 5th Sector, the city’s poorest district

 

Gheorghe Nichita, Mayor of Iași

 

Nicușor Constantinescu, President of Constanța County Council

 

Radu Mazăre, Mayor of Constanța

 

Sorin Oprescu, Mayor of Bucharest

The post Spring cleaning in Romanian politics appeared first on New Europe.

83shares Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+What's This?var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has canceled his visit to Brussels, as well as separate talks with American officials after reports in a pro-government newspaper that the EU and U.S. ambassadors to Serbia are fueling street protests against his rule.

Serbia is in a deep economic crisis. To comply with the terms of the IMF deal, Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic’s new government – which is still being formed after an April 24 election – must cut a public sector which now employs 750,000 people, more than 10 percent of Serbia’s total population.

Vucic, a former ultranationalist turned pro-EU reformer, was scheduled to travel later this month to Brussels for the formal opening of EU membership talks and to the U.S. on an inaugural Air Serbia flight to New York where he was to hold bilateral talks with American officials.

The cancellation comes amid increasing pressure by Russia, a traditional Serb Slavic ally, against Serbia joining the EU and NATO. Vucic made an unannounced visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin last month which resulted in calls by Moscow to “include people who are determined to maintain and strengthen further relations between Serbia and Russia” in the new Serbian government.

Vucic’s office did not immediately return calls from the Associated Press on official details of the cancellation.

Belgrade’s Informer daily, which is close to Vucic and is considered his mouthpiece, said last week that the U.S. ambassador Kyle Randolph Scott and EU envoy Michael Davenport are actively working on “radicalizing” street protests against his rule, trying to trigger “chaos” in the country.

Both the European Commission and Scott vehemently denied they have anything to do with recent street protest by thousands in Belgrade against the shady demolitions in an area of the capital marked for a United Arab Emirates-financed real estate project which is supported by Vucic.

The citizens’ protests have become a challenge to Vucic, who faces accusations of autocratic rule despite promising to take Serbia toward EU integration.

Vucic is to meet the U.S. and EU ambassadors later Monday. (with AP, Reuters)

The post Serbian prime minister scraps visit to Brussels in protest appeared first on New Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/1f1f4d9a-3161-11e6-b4c6-bc764e092fac_2.15_thumb_169_1465820482_1465820482_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Federica MOGHERINI, participates at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CBTO) Ministerial Meeting, taking place on 13 June 2016, in Vienna.

Download this video here.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

On 15 June, SEDE will hold an exchange of views on the security situation in Ukraine and the reform of the civilian security sector with Kęstutis Lančinskas, Head of Mission of EUAM Ukraine, Kenneth Deane, Director, CPCC, EEAS and Mykola Tochytskyi, Head of the Mission of Ukraine to the EU.
Further information
Draft agenda and meeting documents
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The polls are tightening, markets are jittery, and Downing Street is so alarmed it is relyingon Gordon Brown to save the Remain campaign. It may be time to start talking about the day after Brexit, and whether there is a way to engineer a soft-landing.

The “what happens next” issue is tackled today by Donald Tusk, the European Council president, in a typically punchy interview with Bild Zeitung.

“The leave campaign contains a very clear message: ‘Let us leave, nothing will change, everything will stay as before’. Well, it will not. Not only economic implications will be negative for the UK, but first and foremost geopolitical. Do you know why these consequences are so dangerous? Because in the long-term they are completely unpredictable. As a historian, I am afraid this could in fact be the start of the process of destruction of not only the EU but also of the Western political civilisation.”

He later says divorce will be “sad” but manageable within 2 years. But he notes a parallel trade deal – setting the future EU-UK relationship – will be far tougher, and take at least another 5 years after the divorce, if it can be agreed at all. Long as it seems, this 7-year drift is actually optimistic version of the “decade of uncertainty” that David Cameron and Whitehall have described.

If markets react badly to a Brexit vote, there will be huge pressure to find a quick EU fix for a smooth transition (what Wolfgang Münchau calls letting the Brits go in peace). But even under such market duress the political options look poor.

Read more

‘We want our country back!’ is the clarion cry of many who want Britain to leave the European Union.

But whose country do they want back exactly? Your country? My country? Or really, just their country?

Before we leave the European Union and possibly change our country forever, we need to have an idea what country we’d leave behind, and what country we’d get instead, if we vote for Brexit on 23 June.

Look carefully at those Tories who are running the ‘Leave’ campaign and calling for Britain to completely change direction outside the EU.

What could be their real motive?

Those leading Tories – Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, John Whittingdale, Priti Patel and others – have in this campaign viciously attacked their own government and Prime Minister.

It’s been a nasty and sustained ‘blue on blue’ offensive.

Do they know what they’re doing?

Probably yes. The referendum presents for them a possible once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win power for their style of right-wing Conservatism.

• When they say, ‘Let’s take back control’, they really mean, ‘We want to take control’.
• When they say ‘Bring back power from Brussels’, they really mean, ‘We want that power’.
• When they say, ‘We want our country back’, they really mean ‘their’ country. The true-blue right-wing Tory Britain of the past that they sorely miss.

These Conservatives have taken a calculated but clever risk. They know that if the referendum results in Brexit, it will mean the end of David Cameron‘s premiership and those now in government who support his Remain campaign.

Then what?

There would be resignations and a new leader of the Conservative Party would be elected by the party’s membership.

According to YouGov, Boris Johnson would be front-runner by far to become Tory Leader.
On Brexit, we could have a new brand of Conservative government, with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

Another election would not legally be required until 2020.

The country we’d be ‘getting back’ on Brexit would be run by possibly the most right-wing Tory government anyone of us can remember.

Instead of our current alliances with Europe, we could be back to ‘Rule Britannia’ with orthodox Tory Eurosceptics as our new political masters. They could have uninterrupted power for almost four years.

Opposition? What opposition? Labour and Lib-Dems are in disarray.

If these Tory hopefuls get ‘their country back’ on Brexit, what could Britain become?

For an answer, take a close look at what these right-wing Tory Brexiteers stand for. Here are some brief examples:

• Iain Duncan-Smith: Long-term Eurosceptic and former Tory leader, he was until recently the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions. The social policies he proposed were described by the European Court of Justice as ‘unfit for a modern democracy’ and ‘verging on frighteningly authoritarian.’

• Michael Gove: He was last year appointed as Secretary of State for Justice, with a mandate to scrap the Human Rights Act – which might only be possible if Britain leaves the European Union. As Education Secretary, Mr Gove was widely criticised for his heavy-handed education reforms and described as having a “blinkered, almost messianic, self-belief.”

• Boris Johnson: He’s the ‘poster boy’ of the Leave campaign and the likely new Prime Minister if Britain backs Brexit. His buffoonery and gaffes delight some, but horrify others. He once joked that women only go to university to find a husband. He has often dithered on big issues, wavering last year on whether to return to the House of Commons whilst still London Mayor. Some have criticised him for allegedly joining ‘Leave’ only because of the possible opportunity to become Prime Minister.

• Priti Patel: She’s the Minister for Employment. In a pro-Brexit speech last month she said, “If we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs.” TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady responded, “Leave the EU and lose your rights at work – that’s the message that even Leave campaigners like Priti Patel are now giving.”

• Chris Grayling: He’s the Leader of the House of Commons and previously Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He provoked the first strike by barristers and solicitors for his cuts to legal aid. He backed reforms to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights. He caused outrage with his comments that Christian owners of bed and breakfasts should have the right to turn away gay couples (he later apologised).

And waiting in the wings is UKIP leader, Nigel Farage who said he puts victory in the referendum above loyalty to his party. Mr Farage said he would back Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister if Britain votes for Brexit – and could see himself working for Boris’s government.

Imagine our current Tory government morphing into a new government consisting only of right-wing Eurosceptic Tories. With the softer pro-EU Conservatives disbanded because they lost the referendum.

A new Conservative government that wouldn’t be subject to the progressive rules and safeguards of the European Union – such as on workers’ rights, free movement and protection of the environment.

Then imagine that we might not have an opportunity to vote-out such a new government until 2020.

If you’re one of those who say ‘we want our country back’ – have a think about what country you’d be getting back if we left the EU, and who’d then be in charge.

Is the EU so bad, and the alternative so good, that we’d want to risk exchanging what we’ve got, for what we’d get?

__________________________________________________

This article has now been published by The Independent newspaper:

You won’t ‘get back your country’ if you vote for a Brexit – you’ll give it to the most right-wing UK government in recent history

__________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• The problem with Brexit
• Leave campaign is relying on lying to win
• Michael Gove is wrong about 5 million more migrants
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Join Jon Danzig’s new Facebook community in support of Britain remaining a member of the European Union – Reasons2Remain
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter:

Is the #EU bad enough and the alternative good enough to #Leave? Please share my blog: https://t.co/IAsaM0xwFv pic.twitter.com/lF82Os63EM

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) June 12, 2016

 

The post It’s their country they want back, not yours appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The UK then joined France and Italy in the Horizon-class class of air-defence destroyers frigate program; however, differing national requirements, workshare arguments and delays led to the UK withdrawing on 26 April 1999 and starting its own national project Type 45 destroyer. The class is primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare and is built around the PAAMS (Sea Viper) air-defence system utilizing the SAMPSON AESA and the S1850M long-range radars. The Type 45 destroyers were built to replace the Type 42 (Sheffield class) destroyers that had served during the Falklands War, with the last Type 42 being decommissioned in 2013.

The six Type 45 Daring Class destroyers, which cost the taxpayer £1bn each, are the backbone of Britain’s combat force at sea and are among the most advanced missile destroyers in the world. They are the Royal Navy’s first all-electric ships and are driven by two Rolls-Royce WR21 gas turbines and two Wartsila diesel engines. The WR21 is designed to deliver significantly improved operating costs by using an intercooler recuperator, which recovers exhaust and recycles the gas into the engine. But, as a rule, power turbines slowed down in warm temperatures.

But the engines powering the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge fleet are unable to operate continuously in the warm waters of the Gulf. Responding to questions about why the power systems failed in warmer waters than the UK, John Hudson, managing director of BAE Systems maritime, said the original specifications for the vessel had not required it to sustain extremes. “The operating profile at the time was that there would not be repeated or continuous operations in the Gulf,” he said.
Tomas Leahy, of Rolls-Royce naval programmes, said the destroyer was now operating in “far more arduous conditions than envisaged in the specifications”. “This is not the fault of the WR21,” said Mr Leahy. “It is the laws of physics.”

But the Type 45 was designed for worldwide operations from sub-Arctic to extreme tropical environments and continues to operate effectively in the Gulf and South Atlantic all year round. It also emerged that some of the difficulties were rooted in late-stage design changes demanded by the US Navy, when it was leading development of the electric propulsion system. However, the US Navy pulled out of the programme in 2000, when it was taken over by the UK’s MoD. Mr Leahy said that only 1,900 hours of testing had been carried out on the system after the design change, while the problems only emerged after 4,000-5,000 hours of operation.

“With hindsight it would have been good to do another 4,000-5,000 hours of testing on it,” he said. The MoD is having to set aside tens of millions of pounds to fix the destroyers. The plan is to install two extra diesel engines which will require cutting a hole in the hull of the brand new destroyers. The costs of repairing the Type 45 were forcing a delay in the Type 26 frigate programme. Original plans were for the first steel to be cut on the frigates by the end of this year, but this is now not likely before December 2017. The government had already weakened the Royal Navy’s capabilities by cutting the number of frigates that would be ordered from 13 to eight in last year’s strategic defence and security review.

The Type 45 uses a pioneering system called Integrated Electric Propulsion (IEP). There are many advantages associated with IEP, fuel efficiency, flexibility in locating the engines and a supposedly reduced maintenance and manning requirement. In basic terms, two WR-21 gas turbines (GTs) and two Wartsila 2MW diesel generators provide AC power for the motors that propel the ship as well as the power for the ships systems – weapons, sensors lighting etc. The WR-21 GTs were designed in an international partnership with Rolls Royce and Northrop Grumman Marine Systems. The turbines are of a sound design but have an intercooler-recuperator that recovers heat from the exhaust and recycles it into the engine, making it more fuel-efficient and reducing the ship’s thermal signature. Unfortunately the intercooler unit has a major design flaw and causes the GTs to fail occasionally. When this happens, the electrical load on the diesel generators can become too great and they ‘trip out’, leaving the ship with no source of power or propulsion.

The MoD has not revealed how frequently these blackouts have occurred but the first 2 ships, HMS Daring and HMS Dauntless seem to have suffered the most. The first indication of problems was as far back as 2010 when it was admitted HMS Daring lost all power in mid-Atlantic and had to be repaired in Canada. Although the Type 45s have been active, some significant commitments have been missed. An indication that all is not well could be seen by the number of Type 45s alongside in Portsmouth at any given time during the last few years. Historically the RN has never been a fleet of ‘harbour queens’ and today’s over-worked navy can ill-afford unreliable ships. HMS Daring entered service in 2009, it has taken more than 6 years to agree to deal with the problem and it will probably be well after 2020 before the work is completed. It is obviously dangerous from a seamanship and navigational point of view to suddenly lose propulsion at any time. It is even more serious when operating in a high threat environment as the ship would be a sitting duck.

Replacement of the WR-21 GTs is not a practical option. Instead additional or more powerful diesel generators will provide long-term redundancy and assurance that electrical supplies can be maintained in the event of GT failure. The good news is that the large Type 45 design has the space and reserve buoyancy to cope with larger or additional diesels. The rectification work on the six ships will be done one by one as part of the normal major refit cycle. This will extend the length of the refits but should not have an especially dramatic effect on frontline availability.

It is ironic that the RN is suffering with propulsion problems, having had a great history of propulsion innovation and success. The steam turbine was a British invention and in HMS Dreadnought (1906) was the first capital ship to use this leap in propulsive power. The steam turbine drove the majority of major warships for the next 60 years. HMS Amazon (1974) was the first all-GT warship and British engines were subsequently exported to many foreign navies. Much of the world-renowned expertise in naval GT design was derived from an obscure and secretive facility, the Pyestock National Gas Turbine Establishment at Farnborough which tested & developed marine and aero engines until it was closed in 2000. One of Pyestock’s last projects was some of the initial development of the WR-21 done in partnership with Rolls Royce and Northrop Grumman. Reliance on computer modelling signalled the end for Pyestock but with hindsight perhaps there is no substitute for ‘real world’ testing. It is interesting to note that recently Rolls Royce opened a brand new testing facility for the WR-21 and the MT-30 GTs (Which will power the QE aircraft carriers and Type 26 frigate).

There are growing signs that frustration with industry in the MoD has reached breaking point. The Type 45 propulsion problems are just one of many expensive problems with major defence contacts. The cost over-runs of the Astute class submarine have led to Whitehall creating a special project office to manage the Trident Successor submarines and failures will be met with harsher financial penalties. The surprise emergence of the alternative frigate programme, in addition to the Type 26, is also a sign of disillusionment with late, expensive and flawed offerings from BAE Systems.

Source
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/putting-the-type-45-propulsion-problems-...

Tag: Royal NavyType 45

Eurosceptics often claim that they love Europe, but hate the European Union. They assert that Britain can still be part of Europe without having to be part of the European Union.

That, of course, is true to an extent, but it rather misses the point and purpose of the EU.

The European Economic Community – later to be called the European Union – was started in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the express intent of avoiding wars on our continent ever happening again.

That was the passionate resolve of those who are regarded as the eleven founders of the European Union, including our own war leader, Winston Churchill.

After all, Europe had a long and bloody history of resolving its differences through war, and indeed, the planet’s two world wars originated right here, on our continent.

So the EU was never just an economic agreement between nations.

It was always also meant to be a social and political union of European nations to enable them to find ways not just to trade together, but to co-exist and co-operate in harmony and peace on many levels as a community of nations.

The goal, in the founding document of the European Union called the Treaty of Rome, was to achieve ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ (which is rather different to ‘ever closer union of nations’.)

Just one year after the Second World War, in 1946, Winston Churchill made his famous speech in Zurich, Switzerland in which he said:

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.”

At the time Churchill did not envisage Britain joining the new Union of Europe, but he was later to change his mind.

In March 1957 the European Economic Community (EEC) was established by its six founding nations, France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.

This was a remarkable achievement, considering that these countries only a few years previously had been fighting in a most terrible war, and four of the founding nations had been viciously subjugated by another of the founders, Germany, during their Nazi regime.

In a speech four months later in July 1957 at Westminster’s Central Hall, Churchill welcomed the formation of the EEC by the six, provided that “the whole of free Europe will have access”. Churchill added, “we genuinely wish to join..”

But Churchill also warned:

“If, on the other hand, the European trade community were to be permanently restricted to the six nations, the results might be worse than if nothing were done at all – worse for them as well as for us. It would tend not to unite Europe but to divide it – and not only in the economic field.”

Maybe this is the point that many in the ‘Leave EU’ campaigns simply don’t get. Here in Britain we don’t seem to understand the founding purpose of the European Union – and on the rest of the continent, they don’t understand why we don’t understand.

The European Union isn’t just about economics and trade, and never was. It’s about peace, and a community of nations of our continent working together for the benefit and protection of its citizens.

__________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• Churchill: A founder of the European Union
• Churchill wrongly recruited for Brexit
• They want their country back, not yours
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Join Jon Danzig’s new Facebook community in support of Britain remaining a member of the European Union – Reasons2Remain
• Share on Facebook and Twitter

 

#EUReferendum: The #EU isn’t just about trade, and never was. Please share my latest blog: https://t.co/8kxbzutBh0 pic.twitter.com/7sKFkLiquk

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) June 10, 2016

 

The post It isn’t just about trade appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 16 June, SEDE will hold an exchange of views on the EU-NATO capability development cooperation with Jorge Domecq, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency, and General Denis Mercier, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. The NATO-EU Capability Group was established in May 2003 to address common capability shortfalls and to ensure the coherence and mutual reinforcement of NATO and EU capability development efforts such as the Smart Defence and the Pooling and Sharing initiatives.
Further information
draft agenda and meeting documents
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 52 - Draft opinion on an EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 358 - Draft report EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP