• The question they can’t answer: What does ‘leave’ mean?
Here’s a question for you. Would you move home without knowing what your next home looks like? No, me neither.
But that’s what those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU are expecting you to do – vote to end our membership of the EU without knowing what we’d have instead.
The problem LEAVERS have is that they simply don’t know, and for sure they can’t agree.
As a result, two rival, irreconcilable ‘leave’ campaigns have been launched. UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, supports one (Leave.EU) and UKIP’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, supports the other (Vote Leave).
(*Update: and now there is yet another ‘Leave’ campaign called Grass Roots Out – more proof that the ‘Leavers’ cannot agree on their vision(s) of Britain after Brexit)
And as confirmed by the Financial Times, the ‘leave’ campaigns are in disarray.
On the one hand, Mr Farage wants to curtail immigration and stop EU migrants coming to Britain. On the other, Mr Carswell wants to promote a Singapore-style model for Britain, open to capital and migration.
Instead of Britain leaving the EU, these two prominent members of UKIP seem to be putting the case for leaving each other.
Or as the Financial Times put it this weekend;
“It is not just a matter of discordant personalities. Out campaigners have struggled to unite around a single vision of what Britain’s post-Brexit trading arrangements would look like.”
And this is the core problem for the LEAVERS – their Achilles heel. Explained the FT:
“They have also failed to provide a convincing explanation of how leaving the EU would give the British greater control over their destiny and improved economic prospects. This is not surprising because none of the models that is mooted for a future outside the EU is convincing.”
Some Eurosceptics are proposing the same model for Britain as Norway – but to participate in the EU internal market, Norway has to agree to EU rules, without any say in them.
Another option favoured by some Eurosceptics is for Britain to strike trade deals on a country-by-country basis. But, as the FT points out, that would mean British businesses having to pay higher tariffs to trade internationally.
As the Financial Times asserted:
“When it comes to these models – and others – the problem is that Britain moves from being a rule-maker to rule-taker.”
If Eurosceptics can’t even agree among themselves what it would mean for Britain to leave the European Union, it seems a bit rich to expect that voters will know. They don’t know, because the LEAVERS don’t know.
On this basis, I can’t recommend anyone to vote to leave. Our membership of the EU is not that bad; and the options for leaving (whichever one you might choose) are not that good.
* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.
___________________________________________________
Other stories by Jon Danzig:To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes
_________________________________________________
• Comments are welcome – but please read ‘The rules of engagement’
• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:
What does #Brexit look like? Nobody knows. Please share my blog today: https://t.co/MxkurNP5xP pic.twitter.com/BfSqEQLjPV
— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 7, 2016
The post What does Brexit look like? Nobody knows appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
This post was first published in NBXMain in October 2015
Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are international crimes and, since 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can investigate individuals accused of having committed acts of that nature. From 2017, under certain circumstances the ICC will also have jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. These are the four international crimes recognised in the Statute of the ICC. There was a time, however, when scholars, international bodies and even some government officials spoke about a possible fifth international crime: Ecocide.
Ecocide was a crazy idea promoted by a bunch of visionary/loony academics of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Aware of the fact that human action was causing irreparable damage to the ecosystem, they argued that humanity as a whole could be considered to be the victim of premeditated forms of aggression against the environment.
The idea could have remained an exercise of academic engineering had it not resonated, even if mildly, in international political discourse. Most famously, the then Prime Minister of Sweden, Olaf Palme, said in his opening address of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Environment:
”The immense destruction brought about by indiscriminate bombing, by large scale use of bulldozers and herbicides is an outrage sometimes described as ecocide, which requires urgent international attention.”
Click here to view the embedded video.
In the 1970s, the environment became part of the ongoing conversations held at the International Law Commission (ILC) in relation to the Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind. Yet, mysteriously ecocide was dropped from the agenda in the mid-1990s (find out more details here).
It cannot be by chance that this happened precisely when deliberations on the Statute of the ICC were coming to an end (they were completed in 1998). States were only willing to let the ILC play with the notion of ecocide to the extent that enforceability remained weak. Governments were not ready to eliminate safe havens and to let independent bodies judge individuals for the commission of crimes against the environment.
As it stands now, international law sanctions the intentional damage of the environment in wartime situations, and trans-boundary ecological damage can be a source of state responsibility. However, partly due to its blurry definition but especially because of the lack of support from key international actors (mostly Western European states), ecocide never got to the point of development of the prohibition of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Ecocide disappeared from the policy and legal agenda nearly two decades ago. For now, it still is the international crime that could have been but never quite was.
In recent years, there have been attempts to resuscitate ecocide under new frames, connected to indigenous struggles and climate change. Time will tell if, as a normative project, ecocide performs better in this second life. However, considering the failure of the first attempt, and the growing mistrust on the ICC and international justice in general, one must remain cautious. Unless sudden changes revolutionise international politics, the Earth will remain unprotected in international criminal law in the foreseeable future.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Koldo Casla
The post Ecocide: the international crime that could have been but never quite was appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
Tuesday 9 February 2016
11.00 Meeting with the Prime Minister of Georgia Giorgi Kvirikashvili (photo opportunity - press statements ±11.30)
13.00 Meeting with President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker (Berlaymont)
Wednesday 10 February 2016
(European Parliament)
15.15 Meeting with President of the EU Committee of the Regions Markku Markkula
15.30 Address to the EU Committee of the Regions plenary session
Thursday 11 February 2016
11.00 Meeting with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland (photo opportunity)
The Informal meeting of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers (Gymnich) takes place on 5 February 2016 in Amsterdam.