European Union

The first ever document mentioning Bran Castle, a national monument and landmark in Romania, is an act issued by King Lajos I of Hungary on 19 November 1377. The act gave the German Saxons of Kronstadt (Brasov) the right to build the stone citadel at their own expense and labour. The settlement of Bran began to develop nearby. Between 1438 and 1442, the castle was used as a fort to defend against the Ottoman Empire and later became a customs post on the mountain pass between Transylvania and Wallachia.

The Wallachian ruler Vlad III Tepes (Vlad the Impaler), 1448-1476, did not seem to have had any significant role in the history of the fortress, although he did pass several times through the Bran Gorge. Bran Castle belonged to the Hungarian monarchs, but due to some failure to repay loans, the city of Brasov gained possession of the fortress in 1533.

New Europe spoke with Archduke Sándor von Habsburg about the famous castle of Bran, which is now owned by his family. Archduke Sándor was in Brussels for an award ceremony organised by Baron Henri Estramant in order to bestow upon President Herman Van Rompuy the prestigious “Flame of Peace Award” from the Association of the Furtherance of Peace to which he serves as the vice president.

Can you tell us how your family came into possession of the castle?

The castle belongs to the town of Bran, but the administration searched for a suitable person who would bring an economic added value to the community. So the decision was to give it to Queen Marie of Romania (née Princess of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), my great-grandmother. She then invested a lot to completely restore the building and make it her permanent summer residence. It became her favourite place in Romania. She was also known in Romania as the “Queen of Hearts” because she wrote a lot of very nice children’s tales when she was in Bran. My father, Archduke Dominic, was there until he was 10 years old in 1947. Then with the abdication of King Mihai I and the introduction of the communist regime, they had to leave the country.

But your family owned the castle from before?

To be precise, before it became property of Queen Marie, the city of Brasov offered it in 1916 as a present to the last king of Hungary Károly IV from the House Habsburg yet from a different line of the dynasty. The problem was that the King asked the city not to register the castle under his name because of the war he didn‘t want to receive such an ostentatious present during a period in which people were suffering. Hence he “officially” accepted the castle as a gift and his personal property, however, it was never registered as such in the property books. In 1919, Transylvania was annexed by Romania, and the last King of Hungary was exiled.

How did the story of Dracula make the castle such a big tourist attraction?

Historically, Bran was brought in conjunction with Dracula and the story of Bram Stoker. As far as we know, Prince Vlad (Princely House Drăculești) who is the inspiration for Count Dracula never lived in the castle. It is believed he was there a couple of nights, but this has made the castle the most famous tourist attraction in Romania, being the only still surviving abode where he allegedly resided.

Today, as in the communist era, it is a museum open 365 days a year. We also open it four times a year free of charge to school children and we organise a children’s festival so they can learn about its history. Most of the famous movie productions were made during the communist era, so this was before our time. But the story of Dracula created a lot of publicity and visitors. According to state officials, today approximately 40% of tax revenues are generated in conjunction to the castle – restaurants, hotels and tourism-related activities – because there are between 3,000 and 5,000 people visiting the area each day.

Which parts of the castle are the most interesting?

The castle has a very homely atmosphere and it holds four apartments in its structure. It has small rooms, small winding staircases and secret staircases in the walls like the one going directly from the second to the fourth floor. You will see a home and a palace, but also I would say it is a sanctuary, a very spiritual place where you can come to reflect. The castle is full of small places where you can contemplate and be alone. In this place, it is possible to see and experience how a royal family really lived in private. The castle which has a very nice garden and a tea house sits up high on top of a [hill], so you can also have a nice view of the Romania-Transylvania border.

The post Bran Castle, a Romanian gem in mystic Transylvania appeared first on New Europe.

Hillary won Nevada

Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the Nevada on Saturday by 52,7% to 47,2%.

This was a convincing 5,5% lead, that is, a victory much needed by both campaigns and secured by Clinton. The former Secretary of State is again in the lead after losing New Hampshire and just about winning Iowa.

Clinton congratulated Sanders but said that these elections were not and could not be about big banks alone.

Mr. Sanders said not enough people showed up to vote, reminded everyone he covered some ground since only weeks ago he was 25% behind, talked about the Super PACs he is taking on  and reminded everyone he was taking home 15 electors, versus Mrs Clinton’s 19. But, Mr. Sanders can’t run a campaign as an underdog for too long and Mrs. Clinton is now retaking the lead as the favorite.

The underdog psychology can motivate crowdfunding and secure young votes, but many are skeptical about his ability to move across party lines to pursue policies. This matters to interest groups that care about issues, including immigration, healthcare, and unions.

Bottom line: at this point, neither of them is going anywhere.

Mr. Sanders was right on lower turnout, but the fact that he did not inspire more people to vote for him is his own liability, because it is his campaign that takes pride in leading among the young and over 65s; these demographic strongholds are often unreliable.

Eyes are now on a dozen states that will vote on March 1st and could make or break the momentum of either campaign.

Super Tuesday

Mr. Sanders blamed his defeat in Nevada to low turnout and both candidates are preparing for “Super Tuesday,” when a dozen states in Western and South United States pick their candidates.

In Nevada Mr. Sanders did better with the Latino, but “better” alone does not win campaigns.

Bernie Sanders will need to make inroads to Hillary Clinton’s demographic turf to stand a chance. Mrs. Clinton leads the way among women, Latinos, and African Americans. She is losing badly against Senator Sanders among whites and young. But, she did regain some of the ground lost to Mr. Sanders among whites in Nevada, especially among unionized blue collar workers. Unlike Mr. Sanders, she gained enough to win the state.

Who will win each other’s turf

In places like South Carolina race will matter, because minorities are the Democratic turf and that is more important in places with a sizable African-American or Latino community, in South and Western states.

Both campaigns have enough fuel to stay on the course. Mrs. Clinton has a lot more cash-in-hand, but Mr. Sanders has enough to stay on. Mrs. Clinton is indeed doing better with individual donors and Mr. Sanders is doing a good crowdfunding effort.

Mr Sanders is going to Colorado, Mrs. Clinton is going to Texas. When more than one state votes, candidates have to spent their time strategically, campaigning where they think they might win. The choice speaks of their strengths and weaknesses, fight they will take, and fights they won’t.

(CNN, NBC, CNN, Reuters, Guardian, Fortune)

The post Hillary wins Nevada by being more convincing on policy appeared first on New Europe.

The French government has suspended plans to evict thousands of refugees living in the ramshackle “Jungle” camp on the outskirts of Calais. This is the vicinity of Calais, France, where migrants live while they attempt to enter the United Kingdom.

As reported by The Independent, the eviction was postponed by French courts after a census carried out by the charity Help Refugees discovered many more refugees were living in the area than authorities had initially calculated.

The charity said there were 3,455 people living in the southern stretch of the Jungle scheduled to be demolished. It is more than three times France’s estimates of between 800 and 1,000. That figure includes 445 children, of whom 315 were living without their parents – that is not to say they are orphans. The youngest child found was a 10-year-old boy from Afghanistan.

An open letter asking David Cameron to “protect the children of Calais” has garnered more than 100,000 signatures at the time of writing. Among the signatories are Idris Elba, Helena Bonham Carter, Benedict Cumberbatch and a number of other high-profile figures, according to The Independent.

The letter states: “This is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be acknowledged as such and it is imperative that we do everything we can to help these innocent and highly vulnerable refugees, especially the minors, as swiftly as is humanly possible”.

Last month, a British judge ordered that three Syrian children and an accompanying adult should be allowed to escape the “living hell” of the Calais refugee camp and enter the UK to join their relatives.

The post French courts postpone Calais ‘Jungle’ eviction appeared first on New Europe.

Last week on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference US State Secretary John Kerry blamed Russian for its actions in Ukraine and continued support of separatists in the Eastern part of the country. Senior European diplomats supported him saying that Russia would continue to be subject to sanctions until it and the rebels it supports come into full compliance with Minsk agreement. New Europe has met with Serghei Taruta, an Independent MP of Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) and former Governor of Donetsk Oblast, the region at present controlled by the rebels, to discuss his view on the perspectives of the end of the conflict and Ukraine’s membership in the EU and NATO.

NE: How is Ukraine managing with the ongoing problem of internally displaced people – and refugees who are currently in Russia?  Are there any obstacles for their return?

Taruta: The problem of displaced people who have fled their homes because of the war in Eastern Ukraine is a very big challenge indeed for our government. At present there are about 1.5 million displaced people in Ukraine alone, from the territories of Donetsk, the Donbas, Lugansk and in part from Crimea. We know that about 300,000 Ukrainians currently reside in Russia but some of them have already come back.

NE: But Russian state reporting suggests there are about 1 million people who at present temporarily reside in Russia and the Ukrainian government does not provide any humanitarian help for them.

Taruta: This figure is detached from reality. We know the statistics, we know exactly how many people are in our own territory, we know how many lived there before and according to these figures we can understand how many have left.

NE: Is there any process for the reintegration of these citizens?

Taruta: Unfortunately, this is not an easy process. The Ministry of Emergencies developed a special programme under which it set up a number of transit points and provided people with necessary help. Subsequently they were allocated to different regions across the country.

However, the Ukrainian government made some mistakes. For instance, it did not take steps to set up state institutions, which could track all displaced people in the country, as well as assist in organizing the process of their further integration.

NE: The IMF recently said that the next tranche of its proposed loan to Ukraine depends on the implementation of certain reforms. How would you evaluate the likelihood of Ukraine to get the loan?

Taruta: I have no doubts that Ukraine will receive the money but it does not mean that we should not continue implementing our reforms. Personally I think that we should do more for the macro-social situation than the macroeconomic because the IMF’s goal is primarily the macro-financial stability and that is not what Ukraine needs now. Ukraine will receive money from the IMF but the demand of the reforms from its side will be tougher to implement.

The remedies suggested by the IMF for Ukraine form part of a compromise offered by the government and the initial demands of the IMF. These transformations in my opinion should be more substantial than the IMF wants. Crucially, governmental power needs to be decentralized.  We need a transparent administrative system, and regulation that will build an attractive investment climate. The business community in cooperation with the civil society, experts and our western friends, who have experience in this field have already created Declaration of Business, a programme of economic reforms needed in Ukraine. I would like to underline that this programme is not simply prepared in the West, but is in fact created in Ukraine and tailored according to our needs. In a nutshell it is equivalent to a Marshall Plan for  Ukraine, which can substantially change our country for the better.

NE: You mentioned decentralization, which is a very sensitive question now in Ukraine. But the parliament is divided between those who want to keep the present system with strong central government and those who believe that decentralization will bring peace to Ukraine.

Taruta: I think that decentralization is the solution. Unfortunately, the present system as it is in our Constitution is not appropriate. For instance, the executive power of the central institutions is controlled by the government, while the regional power belongs to the President.  This contradiction should be removed and all executive power both central and regional should be in the hands of the Prime Minister and the government.

NE: What do you see as the fate for Crimea within Ukraine?

Taruta: No one in Ukraine has forgotten about Crimea, least of all me. I have lost a lot of money there as I invested a lot in Crimea. Everything was nationalized by the Crimean authorities in a very ugly way, without observing any legislation.

NE: Did you get any money back when your assets were nationalized in Crimea?

Taruta: Of course not. It was entirely a raider attack organized by the Crimean authorities assisted by Russia. It does not even meet the requirements of Russian legislation, not to mention international law. Everything was done in a 1990s style. Investors were divided into categories: those who could be cleaned out without punishment and those who got something because of their relationship with the Russians. It was a very bad signal for the future of Crimea. Again, no one has forgotten Crimea and every politician in Ukraine will fight until Crimea comes back to Ukraine. It was very sad to hear from Russian PM Medvedev at the Security Conference in Munich that the question with Crimea is closed. But we want to say thank you to our western partners, who clearly said that until Crimea comes back to Ukraine part of the sanctions imposed on Russia will remain in place.

NE: How do you see the future of Ukraine?

Taruta: In 2015 Ukraine signed the Association Agreement with the EU and we have to follow its terms. We should implement all necessary reforms and as a reliable partner we will do it. As regards membership, I am pretty lucid and see no opportunities at least at this stage to enter the EU. However, we continue adapting our system according to the European standards.

As regards security issues, Ukraine will remain a neutral country. Despite our desire to be a NATO member we understand that again at this stage it is not possible due to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. However, we, Ukrainians, have to find a way to live with all our neighbors, as unfortunately it is not a matter of choice. They are given to us by history and we should learn from Finland or Austria not merely how to survive but how to develop the country considering the given de-facto circumstances. Radicalism is not an option for Ukraine.

The post A European Ukraine has to live with its neighbors appeared first on New Europe.

We live in a different world. A global world of complexity, uncertainty, stronger competition and high standards of quality and innovation demanding. The economy is confronted with new challenges and the art of the economy is the right answer to the different questions that society define. The art of the economy is the new state of the art of a more creative matrix of concrete proposals to the challenges that are brought every day to society by people and organizations.

The Thinking Economy  must be supported  by the most modern standards of innovation, creativity and competitiveness. This is the reason to believe that a new standard of global economy, more than a possibility, is an individual and collective necessity for all of us, effective global citizens. The difference of this new economy in this new world will be in the exercise of the capacity of the individual participation as the central contribution to the reinvention of the collective society. 

The Thinking Economy  is not determined by law. It is effectively constructed by all the actors in a free and collaborative strategic interaction. The acceleration of the economy depends largely on its people and institutions. An active commitment, in which the focus in the participation and development of new competences, on a collaborative basis, must be the key of the difference. This is purpose of the Diplomacy of the Economy.

The Thinking Economy  must also be developed by a permanent flow of ideas. Ideas demand a permanent colaboration between the different actors, with the strategic challenge of reinforcing the central competences of society and qualifying them as the unique ways of creation of value and modernity. The markets are facing also a unique opportunity. The ideas must be the difference of a proposal we must be aware that is the best key for our ambition of excellence.  The Thinking Economy  demands also a commitment of partnership  in order to build a real Strategy of Confidence in the implementation of the different policies. The focus on Innovation and Knowledge as the drivers of creating added value with international dissemination is a unique challenge that may be the answer to a new way of interaction between those who have the responsibility of thinking and those that have the responsibility of producing goods and services.

The Thinking Economy demands also a new competitive attitude.  We need people to have a new challenge. Society must be able to be the real Platform of a more entrepreneurial attitude, centered in new areas of knowledge and new sectors of value. In a Modern and Active Society, the key word is Co-creation. To promote a dynamic and active creation process involving each citizen is the big challenge for the next years in the future. The future is the right place to say we are in, we want to be in, we want to be the right solution to the global problems we face. The Thinking Economy  must be a confidence in Excellence. Excelence must be the new competitive advantage of a new society of the Ideas pushed by the “enablers” of  Modernity, Added Value and Excellence. A very clear idea that suits the big challenge that our society really faces and that requires new answers for different questions. The act of global  participation in such a demanding society is an exercise of commitment between the individual creativity and the collective cooperation. This is the challenge of the Thinking Economy.

The post The Thinking Economy appeared first on New Europe.

COPENHAGEN – Some $1 trillion was lost to corruption last year. This is money that was not available for expanding health care, broadening access to education, improving nutrition, or cleaning up the environment. According to Transparency International, 68% of the world’s countries have a serious corruption problem, and no country is completely immune.

Corruption is one facet of poor governance; indeed, it correlates with ineffective public administration, weak accountability, low transparency, and inconsistent implementation of the rule of law. So it is little wonder that the United Nations’ brand-new Sustainable Development Goals, coming into force this year, aim to fight it. Nonetheless, the SDGs represent a departure from the previous development framework, the Millennium Development Goals, which contained no explicit targets relating to corruption.

Success would have myriad benefits: better public service, higher economic growth, greater faith in democracy. In an ongoing global poll that has so far attracted 9.7 million responses, “an honest and responsive government” is the fourth most popular policy priority, with only education, health care, and better jobs rated higher.

The problem is that the SDGs have so many targets – 169 in total – that they promise virtually everything to everyone. Without enough time or resources to focus on everything, countries will prioritize. My think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has worked with more than 60 teams of experts to analyze the promised targets to identify what each would cost and achieve, so that prioritization can be better informed.

Nobel laureate economists examined this new research and identified 19 super-targets that would do the most good for the world for each dollar spent. These include achieving universal access to contraception, stepping up the fight against tuberculosis, and expanding preschool access in Sub-Saharan Africa. The economists recommended that the world’s donors and governments focus first on these investments.

The UN’s 12 corruption and governance-related targets weren’t among these phenomenal investments. One reason is that several of the UN’s “targets” in these areas are so broad as to be meaningless. Indeed, it is all very well to say that we want to “develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels,” and to “substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms,” but where do we start?

Despite many years of effort, no simple path to achieving good governance or corruption-free institutions has been cleared. One challenge is that experts do not agree on whether good governance or development should come first. Historically, good institutions such as secure property rights and the rule of law were seen as the single most important factor driving variation in the wealth of countries, and more corruption was associated with lower growth. But more recent analyses have shown that it could just as easily be that higher wealth and economic growth lead to better governance.

A study of 80 countries where the World Bank tried to reduce corruption revealed improvement in 39%, but deterioration in 25%. More disturbing is that all of the countries the World Bank didn’t help had similar success and failure rates – suggesting that the Bank’s programs made no difference.

But the experts enlisted by the Copenhagen Consensus Center found one governance-related target that actually would do some good for each dollar spent: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” That may seem like a very unambitious target compared to eliminating all corruption or creating transparent institutions everywhere. But in many developing countries, achieving the measurable target of universal legal identity would make a real difference.

Achieving this target requires functioning public services to provide registration facilities and maintain records. Establishing such institutional capacity would create a clear model for how other services could be provided effectively. In practice, a functioning registration service would almost certainly not exist in a vacuum, and thus would be a sign of emerging administrative competence.

But this is not just about bureaucracy; there are real benefits for citizens. They can claim legal rights, including property rights, which are vital to allow individuals to prosper and the economy to grow. Likewise, elections become less vulnerable to corruption and fraud when voters are properly registered.

If we want to place a high priority on fighting corruption, we should not settle for overly broad, well-meaning slogans. We should work on specific, proven, and effective approaches such as providing legal identity for all.

But we also have to confront the possibility that when it comes to helping the world’s poor, anti-corruption policies may not be the best place to spend our money first. This is partly because there are much more effective ways to tackle problems like tuberculosis or access to contraception, and partly because current anti-corruption policies are expensive and do little or no good.

This is not to deny that corruption hits the world’s poor hard. But there are many challenges, from lack of healthcare to starvation and pollution, that also hurt the poor but that we can address more effectively.

Focusing on what we can do well seems less impressive than promising everything to everyone – until it’s time to deliver. Those who prioritize properly will end up helping many more people.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.

www.project-syndicate.org

The post When is fighting corruption worth it? appeared first on New Europe.

He survived, on Tuesday last week, a no-confidence vote in parliament, but then two junior parties left his government coalition, leaving it hanging in the limbos of incertitude.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk once said that taking the job of Ukrainian prime minister was an act of “political suicide” and on Tuesday he was almost proven right. Facing charges that he has been unable to deliver on a pledge to tackle corruption and fix the economy, the bespectacled pro-Western premier was asked to step down by the president, Petro Poroshenko, “in order to restore trust in the government”.

When he was made premier, Yatsenyuk was one of Europe’s youngest government chiefs, a post made more powerful since parliament voted to return to a 2004 constitution that handed a raft of powers from the president to lawmakers. He was born on May 22, 1974, into a family of professors. After having studied law and economics, he worked in a Kiev bank, went to Ukraine’s central bank, and in 2001 he became minister of economy for Crimea, which enjoyed limited autonomy as part of Ukraine. The then president Yushchenko had him in the government as economy minister (2005-2006), then made him briefly foreign minister in 2007. He was chief negotiator for Ukraine’s entry into the World Trade Organisation.  Following the so-called Orange Revolution in 2004, Yatsenyuk began pushing a more pro-Western agenda and became a close ally of Yuliya Tymoshenko, the prime minister from 2007 to 2010 who was jailed under Yanukovych for abuse of power. Being the protege of Tymoshenko, Yatsenyuk rose to prominence as one of the main protest leaders on Kiev’s Independence Square, shedding his intellectual image with stormy speeches from the podium. For all his talking tough to the crowds, he is also a skilled behind-the-scenes political operator who had held top posts under previous governments. A former speaker of parliament, he came fourth in the 2010 presidential election won by pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych, winning just 7 % of the vote.

Yatsenyuk served as foreign minister under another president, Viktor Yushchenko, in 2007 and became a compromise figure when a personal conflict between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko began to spiral out of control. Yatsenyuk was always good at preparing his coups quietly and manoeuvring by surprise. He entered Yuliya Tymoshenko’s party Batkivshchyna on time, and he left it on time. He ran against Tymoshenko in the 2010 presidential elections, then accepted to lead her party while she was in jail. In last year’s elections he had his own platform, on which he narrowly beat out Poroshenko’s Bloc.

Only two weeks after he took the oath, Russia annexed Crimea and a bloody pro-Moscow insurgency soon raged in the industrial east.

The war-torn country was also in dire economic straits and Yatsenyuk openly admitted that dragging the former Communist republic from the brink of collapse would mean pushing through wrenching austerity measures. Yatsenyuk’s considerable economic experience proved a boon as he took on the task of negotiating a massive multi-billion-dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund, European Union, World Bank and allied countries to keep Ukraine afloat.

Although he did not have an image as a tough politician, he became known for his vitriolic condemnations of Moscow and he won plaudits for standing up to Russia as it cut off vital gas supplies to Ukraine over a bitter price dispute. But that image has faded in recent months, with two top reformist officials resigning in protest against alleged state graft, and Yatsenyuk’s closest allies becoming embroiled in corruption charges.

He had come to power pledging to root out Ukraine’s endemic corruption but ended up facing allegations that he was backing the interests of the very billionaires he had vowed to sideline.

After the parliament failed to garner the votes required to oust Yatsenyuk’s team, this left Ukraine in the peculiar position of its two top leaders at seeming odds over how to proceed further.

The post Arseniy Yatsenyuk: the eternal survivor appeared first on New Europe.

When the euro – the common currency in 19 out of the 28 European Union countries – was created, there was a sense that we had already taken a big step toward economic and ultimately political integration.

After all, European economies had to continue a rapprochement and the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich countries was being diminished.

But today, we can conclude that we were wrong. The reality is a completely different situation and it is one that has been tormenting the European Union during these last couple of months.

Unfortunately, there are many places inside the Union where no one cares about integration. But that’s not all. There is also growing hostility toward the European idea and the European Union itself. It is growing dramatically.

On the economic level, when the euro was introduced, every national government continued to act as though the common currency were a national currency. No institution controlling financial policies was active in reality. As a result, some of the countries in the euro zone – and not just the bloc’s southern members – fell deep in economic crisis.

The reaction of the richest countries was not the creation of a controlling mechanism, but a campaign against the “lazy and corrupt” members. It should not come as a surprise now to see a considerable proportion of Europeans asking for the financially weak countries to be placed under irrational rescue programmes. It is no surprise either that there is a growing tendency among some member states to want severe punishment against the weaker members like Greece today.

But, as we can see, every country, according to its power, can impose conditions on the Union, as we are experiencing now with the United Kingdom. Can we talk today about economic integration to the citizens of Europe? Probably not.

On the political level, the situation seems to be a lot worse.

After the latest EU enlargements during which countries that had experienced a long period of communist totalitarianism joined our European home, we thought that political integration was on the right track. It meant the creation of a huge union – one based on democratic and liberal values in which every citizen would live equally with his or her religious, cultural, national or sexual particularities.

Again, we were wrong.  From the onset of the economic crisis, Europe was divided. Some EU members verbally attacked other members. This resulted in a breeding ground for populist politics.

Mainstream newspapers discovered lucrative merchandise in nationalist and populist news by rousing the lowest level of sentiments among their readers. Attacking the poorest countries and especially the European idea became a top-selling daily headline. 

As a result, a considerable portion of EU citizens in many member countries tend to think that less Europe is the best medicine for any ailment.

There’s more. Every state, guided by public opinion polls, presented its own planning and schedule – not taking in consideration what the European Union, as a body, had decided.

One example is how some EU countries reacted when Brussels imposed sanctions against Russia after the annexation of Crimea.

The constitution in some countries also became the target of ultraconservative leaders. The freedom of the media came under threat. Some citizens, especially the Roma minority, were condemned to a life in the margins of society. But it was the massive waves of refugees and migrants starting to arrive to Europe in 2014 (first through Italy and then through Greece) that proved just how deep the divisions are in Europe.

Xenophobia, nationalism, Islamophobia and racism, as well as Europhobia and homophobia, violently entered our daily life, despite the fact that all of these are alien to our post-war European culture.

So can we talk about integration today? Should we remain hopeful we will reach the goal in the end? Many of the actions taken, such as that of the summit of the Visegrad Group, have left us wondering. Still, let’s hope the EU will know what to do and manage to isolate these negative examples before they spread.

The post Should we just forget about integration? appeared first on New Europe.

The post “112 fights against the tide” – New Europe Print Edition Issue 1153 appeared first on New Europe.

We have two open issues with the Directorate General for Research and Innovation (RTD) of the European Commission. A cancelled audit which resulted to € 5,5 mo. loss for the Community budget and the reduction of a recovery from € 70 mo. by € 61 mo.

Politically, RTD comes under Commissioner Carlos Moedas, a young yet dynamic and sharp Portuguese politician. Director General is Robert-Jan Smits. The two cases above, were powered during the previous Barroso II Commission and were both staged by Director General Robert-Jan Smits. Commissioner Carlos Moedas at the time was in Portugal and had nothing to do with the wheeling-dealings. Therefore we presume that Carlos Moedas will not attempt to cover-up any possible investigations on the matter as will take personally, and will certainly affect the present Commission, “sins” of his predecessors.

The cancellation of the audits to a European scientific foundation was illegitimate. Full stop. There was not College or other decision for that and was direct responsibility of the Director General. The why, in known only to the God and to the Director General. It would be most interesting to share this information with us but we doubt. Certainly he will have to explain that to OLAF which to the best of our knowledge received a fully substantiated complaint for the case.

The case of the reduction of the €70 mo. recovery from the French Research organization CNRS by € 61 mo. is the second problem. The reduction was made on the grounds of a Commission Decision of December 17, 2012 which authorized RTD to come to a deal with CNRS. How, the good Director General managed within the same day to conclude the deal and get CNRS to sign the “protocole transactionnel” while he signed the next day, shows efficiency! The fact that CNRS announced the deal two months before, specifically on October 26, 2012, goes besides the efficiency of the good Director General and enters the field of  sphere metaphysics.

However, in good faith we accept also metaphysics. What we cannot “digest” is that the protocole transactionnel signed by the Commission includes a confidentiality clause which does not allow other organizations, possibly in the same situation of CNRS versus the Commission, to have knowledge of the deal and on the basis of that, receive equal treatment. This is unfair and serious misconduct on the part of the European Commission. For this reason, we release in our website (http://neurope.eu/protocole-transactionnel-cnrs-ce/)

the entire confidential “protocole transactionnel” as signed by CNRS and the Commission. In reality, we are doing what the Commission should have done in the first instance.

We are waiting to see what Carlos Moedas and the Juncker Commission will do for those two cases as they are far from being over, as yet. We have noticed with interest that the Deputy Director General W Burtscher in Charge of Budget and Legal Maters (the most crucial of the three verticals of RTD) was moved to the vertical Science and Innovation. It is most interesting that W Burtscher was temporarily replaced by the Director in this department  F. Biscontin. But this seems to be a temporary arrangement. It remains to be seen who will replace F. Biscontin as he cannot stay there forever. If will be somebody of the entourage of RJ Smits, it will mean that for sometime the problems will be hidden under the rug and the present Commission will become responsible for the “sins” of its predecessors. Otherwise, if the new Deputy Director General is appointed by the Cabinet of  Juncker, it will imply that for as long as R-J Smits remains at the post of Director General, he will be under probation.

The post Who will manipulate the manipulators? appeared first on New Europe.

Georgina Chapman and Keren Craig, of high-end evening wear brand, Marchesa, presented a sumptuous collection inspired by American painter John Singer Sargent, who was famous for his portraits of society ladies in the 1880’s. Gold and silver embroidery embellished long pastel-toned ethereal gowns in satin, tulle and organza, while the flower theme and Belle Epoque-inspired costume jewellery, gave the romantic models an infinitely regal allure.

Carly Cushnie and Michelle Ochs, the designers behind upcoming label Cushnie et Ochs, presented a minimal sexy collection in classic black, white, red, champagne and silver tones.

The ensembles with ruffles and monochromatic evening dresses with flattering cutouts had an understated elegance that would suit women of all ages and body types.

For his eponymous collection, Ralph Lauren presented preppy Bostonian outfits, woollen chequered suits borrowed from the male wardrobe, trenches, ample midi skirts, coats, men-inspired shirts and ties in earthly tones and the brand’s signature camel, all of which seemed to wink at Diane Keaton’s look in Annie Hall. The latter part of the collection was devoted to evening wear, with dandy-like outfits made up of white shirts with jabot collars, slim black pants, and long coats with embroidered detailing and military uniform touches.

Among the closing looks were several long velvet gowns in precious tones, as well as a couple of outfits in an impressive metallic silk fabric that seemed to be ‘dripping gold’.

At Ohne Titel, designers Flora Gill and Alexa Adams’ fall collection had goth influences, as purple lipstick and 90’s inspired choker collars complemented the sporty chic woollen and leather outfits with sophisticated knitted detailing. The recurring metallic satin trend also made its way across several evening outfits like a cherry satin number with a bustier top, for classy rebels on a night out.

Michael Kors’ collection was quite eclectic: the designer’s typical preppy style was combined with Liberty prints and British chequered wool, as well as fur and feather detailing in anise green, sky blue, lilac, beige and grey.

Formal dresses and ensembles were in glittering gold and silvery tones that owned a distinct 60’s Courrèges and 70’s Paco Rabanne glamour.

Last but not least, Tommy Hilfiger presented a retro nautical collection: dresses with 40’s cuts, romantic baby blue tops with Peter Pan collars, sailor jackets and pants with stripes, denim navy suits and silk dresses with nautical motifs, all worn with ruffled socks and tiaras: all so very Mary Jane, indeed.

The post Sprinkle & Sparkle appeared first on New Europe.

Brussels Airport, which is Belgium’s largest and one of the world’s leading airports, features Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox and Protestant “places of worship,” as well as a “Humanist meditation room.” But airport officials reportedly rejected a request for a designated Hindu prayer room.

In response to Hindu statesman Rajan Zed’s email on January 24, Cindy Wullems, Customer Feedback Officer Operations of Brussels Airport Company (BAC), said that the Brussels Airport only foresees a place of worship for the regions recognised in the country.

Rajan Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, said it is “very sad” considering that Hinduism is a major world religion.

Rajan Zed further said that prayer/worship to God was highly important in Hinduism, and it would be great to have “Hindu Prayer Room” at Brussels Airport so that Hindu passengers did not miss their daily worship rituals/rites while travelling through it; which might include recitation of texts, repetition of mantras and dhayan (meditation).

The post Brussels Airport rejects ‘Hindu Prayer Room’ idea appeared first on New Europe.

We notice with interest progress in the EU Delegation in Serbia, as a second tender was awarded once again to …the British Council, in a week time. The amount was € 3,7 mo. to build judicial efficiency. That the Head of the Delegation, Michael Davenport, was previously the UK Ambassador in Belgrade, we presume it is coincidental. The explanation is simple. All in a sudden the British Council got involved in the tender process in Serbia as after the Brexit Referendum might not be able to participate in similar tenders.

In the meanwhile, our correspondent in Belgrade is working on the «correction» letter published last week as it was sent by the Delegation and is collecting relevant information which will present shortly. The matter was concerning another tender which was cancelled once and was repeated recently. The matter is quite important as it shows the sensitivities of the Delegation, as they result from the letter published last week but also involves the sensitivities of the Head Offices (DG NEAR) which after the cancellation, reported the case directly to the anti-fraud service of the Commission.

The post Last gifts to the Britts? appeared first on New Europe.

The European Commission’s  Directorate-General  Communication has systematically blocked initiatives which aim to make the European emergency number 112 more known in the EU’s member-states.

112 is the European emergency number in all 28 EU member states, as well as other countries of the European continent. People in distress can call 112 to reach the fire brigade, medical assistance and the police 24/7 totally free of charge.

Speaking to New Europe, Gary Machado, the Executive Director of the European Emergency Number Association (EENA), recounted the bizarre events surrounding an EENA initiative that was blocked from functionaries of DG Communication in Brussels.

In order to fulfill its goal of having more Europeans know about 112 so that they may use it if ever there is an emergency, EENA reached out to the Commission Representations in several member states, asking them to help promote 112 in any way they can. The response was overwhelming.

New Europe has seen emails from the European Commission Representations in Italy, Sweden, Spain, Poland and Greece, expressing the desire to include 112 in their social media campaigns, and to help the dissemination of this unquestionably European facility in several different ways. It should be noted that EENA requested no financial element. “The representation … wholeheartedly supports every action aiming at informing the European public about the existence and use of 112 …”,  read one of the letters.  Excited about the response, Machado contacted DG Communication, looking to see if there could be a more centralized approach and hoping to get Brussels to tell the Representation about using 112’s publicity materials on occasion.

DG Communication granted a meeting with a Head of Unit, but when Machado and an intern showed up, excited to discuss the possibilities, they were greeted by seven people. This included three Heads of Unit from DG Communication and three policy officers from DG Connect. “When we entered the room, we knew something was wrong,” Machado recounted.

Their excitement was soon crushed. Without reason, one of the Heads of Unit, told Machado and his colleague, “not to contact the Commission’s Representations,” and that they “will not promote 112”. Machado’s colleague told New Europe that she felt that “for [the European Commission], 112 was clearly not a priority”.

In a patronizing manner, which is often the case with individuals who hold ad hoc discretionary power in the European Commission, the EENA representatives were told that they “should be creative” and try to find a way to influence European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, Andrus Ansip.

EENA followed orders and never again contacted the Commission Representations. Disappointed at the reality that they had been turned down for a dissemination that would have zero cost, they unwittingly took the advice and veered to other, more creative avenues. This month, 112 announced a mega-cooperation with hospitality giant, AIRBNB, to have all guests using the service informed of the 112 number through guest emergency information cards.

Despite the unusual turn of events, Machado hopes that the European Commission will come around. “I hope that the European Commission will proactively take all necessary steps to promote 112. EENA is always available to work with the European Commission for improving awareness of the common European emergency number.”

The post 112 fights against the tide appeared first on New Europe.

The post #New Europe Shooting Gallery Issue 1153 appeared first on New Europe.

Donald Trump won the South Carolina primary with a double-digit and convincing lead.

Trump led with 32.5%, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz tied on 22.5% and 22.3% respectively. Bush trailed in fourth at 7.9%

He is clearing the Republican field. Jeb Bush dropped out of the race and Trump now faces Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Bush pitched himself as the “thinking” candidate speaking about policy in a race dominated by politics. He had different views on immigration and education than most of his running candidates, but this was not “an issue” campaign.

It is all about culture and persona. Focusing more on policy details than outbidding his opponents in faith and might, Bush appeared too much “establishment” in a campaign where ideology plays a predominant role. He came a single-digit forth in South Carolina. His was the most well-consulted and well-funded campaign. That did not prove enough.

Being the third Bush to claim the Republican nomination was both a privilege and a liability. The balance tilted towards liability. He was made an apologist for his brother’s legacy, especially Iraq.

Marco Rubio is hoping to benefit as the favorite candidate of the Republican establishment. He will gain both voters and funding, which could push him from third place to Trump’s main challenger.

But second in South Carolina and first in Iowa was the deeply conservative and ideologically militant Ted Cruz. The Conservative vote is still fragmented as Carlson remains in the race.

Next stop is Super Tuesday with a dozen southern states voting on March 1st.  Mr. Trump will no doubt feel the heat against both Rubio and Ted Cruz, but if he were to come out a winner in this battle, he may secure the nomination.

(BBC, NBC, CNBC, CNN, Washington Post)

The post Jeb Bush quits the race, Trump leads convicingly appeared first on New Europe.

Boris Johnson is the face of the “Leave Campaign” in Britain.

This is a man born in New York and educated in the European School of Brussels  Ashdown House School, but also Eton College. With wide eyes open he decided to back the “Out” campaign.

While David Cameron will be the face of the “Remain” campaign, warning Britons that leaving is a “leap in the dark,” the Mayor of London took a long awaited and hardly surprising position of leading Britain’s “leave campaign.”

On Sunday afternoon, Johnson said that “after a huge amount of heartache” he will campaign for Britain to leave the EU. Ladbrokes suggest that this moves means that now Boris Johnson is Cameron’s most likely successor in the leadership of the Conservative Party and that the “Out” campaign has more chances of winning, according to the Ladbrokes betting agency.

David Cameron got to know of Johnson’s decision via a text message, BBC reports. But, Boris Johnson has made clear for quite some time he believes that the EU is in “real danger of getting out of proper democratic control” and is responsible for eroding British sovereignty.

The iconic Mayor of London is one of the most popular politicians in Britain. His “Out” position is a tremendous blow to the Prime Minister and the “remain” campaign. Johnson published an article in The Telegraph on February 8 commenting that Cameron has done a job “better than many expected.” He added a “fantastically good job” superlative on Sunday evening. But, that was a matter of courtesy.

In reality, the Mayor of London has been making demands that were not on the negotiating table, blasting on the “wasteful, expensive and occasionally corrupt” Common Agricultural Policy, the resistance to a services union, the dangers to regulating the City, and the red tape stemming from Brussels.

Boris Johnson believes Britain can have a new relationship to the EU, more focus on trade and cooperation, that in his view will cost less to British tax payers. The Mayor of London denied that this decision was linked to his ambition to lead the Conservative Party, against Mr. Osborne. Many of his critics are less than convinced.

Mr. Johnson will not be alone among the Tories. He will be joined by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Justice Secretary Michael Gove. Zac Goldsmith, the candidate running for Mayor of London this May will also support the “Out” Campaign.

(BBC, The Telegraph, The Times)

The post Boris Johnson is the face of Britain’s “Out” campaign appeared first on New Europe.

• The new InFacts website, putting right incorrect ‘facts’ about the European Union

Facts, stats and data are flying about all over the place from all sides, and it’s not surprising that many people are confused.

This morning, for example, over a communal hotel breakfast, friends and colleagues claimed, “The EU isn’t democratic!” and “The EU accounts have never been signed-off!” and “EU migrants only come here for the benefits!”

All these statements are untrue, but when trying to challenge them, the incredulous reply is often, “I don’t believe you!”

Well, of course, as an independent journalist I have been trying my best to post factual articles to counter the mistruths about Britain’s membership of the EU. But with few resources and working on my own, there is a limit to what I can achieve.

Now, however, a new website has launched that I can highly recommend. It’s called InFacts.org and it’s doing a sterling service in combating some of the blatantly incorrect information being published and broadcast about the European Union.

It has, for example, a section called ‘Sin Bin’ where every day it takes to task statements proclaimed by newspapers and politicians that are provably wrong.

Hopefully this will be helpful to all those who, like me, support Britain’s continued membership of the EU, and need ready-facts at the breakfast or dinner table when discussing with friends and family whether Britain should stay in the EU.

And it seems that, in the lead-up to the EU referendum, such meal-time, pub-time and work-time discussions are going to become more and more prevalent and likely quite heated too.

• In the latest edition of Infact’s ‘Sin Bin’, The Independent is taken to task for falsely reporting that, since 2010, one-third of new jobs were taken by foreigners. 
• Tory MEP and ardent Eurosceptic, Daniel Hannan, is challenged for wrongly stating that the EU only has trade-deals with two Commonwealth countries. 
• Vote.Leave boss, Matthew Elliot, is pulled up for erroneously claiming that the UK sends almost £20 billion a year to the EU. 
• And Margaret Thatcher’s former Press Secretary, Bernard Ingham, is ‘sin binned’ for wrongly claiming that the EU accounts haven’t been signed off for ‘nigh on 20 years.’

For these and other ready-facts and challenges on why ‘Britain should stay in the EU’, take a look at the new ‘In Facts’ website at www.infacts.org

Does the fact that I am promoting ‘In Facts’ make me biased as a journalist? Yes, it does.

I am openly pro-EU and happy to declare that as ‘an interest’. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t also have a healthy respect for the truth. As I have often written, I accept the truth, and don’t argue with it, whether I like it or not.

After all, my reputation as a journalist of many years standing is based on being a truthful and honest reporter of facts.

So, if the Leave campaign do come up with better information and verifiable evidence that Britain should end its membership of the EU, then yes, my mind is open to change. So far, however, they haven’t managed to persuade me.

Sure, there is a lot wrong with the EU. However, my view is that the EU isn’t bad enough, and the alternatives aren’t good enough, for Britain to leave. So, consequently, I intend to vote for Britain to ‘Remain’ in the EU.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

• A reminder: What has the EU done for us?
• EU migrants are NOT ‘bleeding dry the NHS’
• What Nigel Farage told British expats in Spain
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

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

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read: ‘Debate, don’t hate’

• Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

#Truth is 1st first casualty of #EUReferendum Good we have @InFactsOrg Read my intro: https://t.co/QQaxdVjtRc pic.twitter.com/gKQeQlZZc7

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 20, 2016

The post Facing facts about the EU referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.