Ideas on Europe Blog

Two weeks away from all this Brexit stuff has been very pleasant, especially now the sun’s come out too.

Naturally, part of me worries that everyone else has had a fortnight off, which is A Bad Thing when running a fixed-timetable negotiation, but there you go.

To ease us all back into things let’s try revisiting the old chestnut of ‘control’, because it’s floating around again and because there continues to be a lack of clear understanding.

Let’s try starting from here: lots of people see the world as a place when being strong means you get to decide how things are. My fancy words don’t count for much if you can punch me in the face, or even just threaten to punch me in the face.

As a model, it’s got a lot going for it: it’s simple, it fits with much of what we see around us and it taps into social expectations/conventions of the role of violence.

This worldview is a key part of the ‘control’ narrative in the Brexit process: others force us to do things against our will, so we must regain our agency to do what we chose.

However, it’s also highly problematic. Most obviously, ‘being strong’ covers a multitude of not-necessarily mutually-compatible things: thus, the US can be the most powerful country in the world, but still be subject to other powers defeating them in combat or to hacks or trade disputes. Likewise, strength is rarely stable, especially in competitive systems: if everyone believes they need to be strong to succeed, then security dilemmas ensue and everyone tries to push everyone else down.

Again, you might feel this is just how things are: the rat race is just a fact of life so we’d better get on with it.

And yet, try looking around you for a moment. You’ll notice that face-punching is the exception, not the norm.* That’s because it is possible to conceive of things in a different, more cooperative way. Yes, we need structures for making decisions and setting out what is and isn’t allowed, but these can be agreed jointly, rather than imposed unilaterally. Control here comes for the ability to be part of that joint decision-making: we each have a voice and a say, at the price that none of us has a say that imposes – by itself – on others.

‘Ah, a wishy-washy liberal: I knew it!”, you cry. “Why can’t we all just get along?” you say, with a sarcastic tone. Maybe making a peace sign while you’re at all.

Well, much as it’d be nice to all get along, we don’t, so this alternative perspective actually invites us to put in place checks and balances, so that there is that collective tying of hands. We lose some control – over what we can impose unilaterally on others – but we gain some – over what we can impose collectively on others (and ourselves).

And this is a key part of the logic on which European integration is built: we take decisions together, to provide a more equitable process and outcome than would otherwise occur. To take the classic example, France wanted the Euro because it would institutionalise French interests in a monetary policy system that previously failed so to do: the Bundesbank set policy for Germany, but that had effects beyond German borders. Likewise, German policy-makers got to make those other states joining the single currency follow the rigours of the German model, which would expand the zone of stability they had created in the post-war period.

(before you say, yes, expectations can sometimes be wrong)

But how does this come back to Brexit?

Much of the debate in the UK on control has been driven by passion and emotion, rather than cold rationality: who wouldn’t want more control, after all?

What has been missing is a questioning of what the purpose of having control might be.

Here we might think about a business engaged in international trade. If it wants to sell to overseas markets, then it has to conform to the standards in place there, as well as any domestic standards. Free trade types will explain how this all incentivises progressive regulatory convergence, as transnational economic operators will press to reduce wasteful variation. As I explained in a podcast some years back, the reason the EU has rules on fruit shape is because that’s less complex than each member state have their own rules.

Of course, some domestic producers will also lobby for different standards, precisely to limit international trade and protect their market share. This is then a non-tariff barrier; much mentioned, little understood. Even if there aren’t quotas or tariffs on products moving across a border, you can still make life difficult for others by requiring them to meet some arbitrary product standard that your domestic producers just happen to be much better placed to provide.

Economic theory tells us that limiting trade might provide some localised benefits, but at a global cost. Think of the US’s trade dispute with China: yes, raising tariffs on selected goods will make them more expensive, and thus attractive to US consumers, but typically that means those consumers are also now paying more for those goods – whatever their source – which hits their bottom-line. Add in the trade-diversion effects – cheap Chinese products flowing into other markets – and the economics not stack up to anything like the political claims.

In the British case, leaving the EU is more subtle in its effects. For many products, a system of mutual recognition operates: if it’s safe to sell in one state, then it’s safe for other states, even if it doesn’t meet the entirety of those other states’ standards. That means many British producers may find that even without changes to UK standards, they suddenly don’t have the access they once did. That’s on top of anything that does change.

And that brings us to the nub of the matter: why should anything change?

This brings us back to that starting point. Leaving the EU means the power to make our own rules, but there’s a difference between actually making changes because we can and simply having the power to do if we choose. Witness the way in which the government wants to use the EU Withdrawal Bill to continue using all of the EU law in operation in the UK until it can decide whether or not to continue using it: the default is continuation, not termination.

Again, many economic operators and sectoral interests want to see continuity, not disruption. And that has led several politicians and commentators to question: is it worth it? If we’re just going to carry on following most of the same rules, but now without that voice and vote, what’s the point?

That’s somewhat to miss the point of the popular debate. The power to divergence, if we so choose, is as important any actual divergence.  It doesn’t matter to most people that the EU has mechanisms for accommodating degrees of disagreement about specific pieces of legislation, because it still feels like an imposition.

However, the liberal nightmare to come in this is that instead of a sense of having to follow EU rules because we have to, there will be situation where the UK chooses to follow EU rules because it wants to: we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Cue the next round of the long-running debate about what Britain’s relationship with Europe should be.

* If not, my apologies and my commiserations.

The post Control in theory and practice appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Just like I predicted it, Fidesz’s Viktor Orban recorded a landslide victory in last week’s elections, crushing the opposition political parties’ short-lived confidence.

Winning 134 of the 199 seats, Orban guaranteed a super majority in the Hungarian parliament, which would allow him to make any constitutional change he sees necessary.

Upon losing the elections, leaders of the opposition political parties including Áikos Hadházy of the LMP, Gyula Molnár of MSZP, and Gábor Vona of Jobbik have all resigned from their positions.

Emerging pictures of the long queues of people from the polling stations on the day of the elections have had raised hopes of the many that this time the opposition political parties would increase their share of seats in the parliament, hence deny Fidesz a super majority. However except in some districts of Budapest, in small Hungarian towns and in rural parts of the country Orban’s party polled best.

Not only Fidesz’s populist anti-immigration rhetoric, but also the failure of the opposition political parties in forming a united front against Fidesz, as well as Orban’s handling of the economy could explain why more than %49 of the Hungarians have once again opted for Orban.

However what is more striking are the developments that have been taking place post-elections both in Hungary and at the European Union level in relation to the newly elected Hungarian government.

The uncertain future of the opposition  media outlets in Hungary, dilemma of the European Party Groups’ in whether to congratulate Orban on his success and the European Parliament’s draft report on the state of rule of law and democracy in Hungary are some of which I could point to.

Right after the elections Magyar Nemzet, Hungary’s major opposition newspaper and its sister radio station Lánchíd Rádió announced their closure. It is suggested that Orban’s withdrawal of all the government advertising has contributed to this end. And what is more is that a pro-government weekly Figyelo published a list of 200 people who work for NGOs that included as Amnesty International, refugee advocates, and investigative journalists and are described as George Soros’s mercenaries, aiming to topple the government and open the country to immigrants. Both the closure of the opposition media outlets and the use of pro-government newspapers against the opposition point to the state the media has come to in Hungary. Like in any other illiberal democracy, for instance Turkey, media in Hungary no longer functions in the way we know in the Western liberal democracies. It is controlled and utilised as propaganda machines by the ‘democratically elected’ governments to maintain the popularity of their policies among the crowds at the cost of free media.

Since Fidesz is part of the European People’ Party group in the European Parliament, it was only normal for the leader of the EPP, Manfred Weber, and the president of the EPP, Joseph Daul, to congratulate Orban on his electoral success. However others like Bavarian MEP Markus Ferber and Gunnar Hökmark (MEP) from Sweden expressed their concern about the anti-Semitic rhetoric adopted by the leadership of Fidesz during the elections, and quiet rightly demanded Weber and Daul to stand up for the core values of the EU. Some even expressed dismissing the Fidesz MEPs from the EPP. Whereas Udo Bullmann, the newly elected leader of the European Parliament’s Socialist bloc also criticised the EPP for not directly confronting Orban and Philippe Lamberts, co-president of the Greens demanded that the EPP does not prioritise party friendship above fundamental rights and democracy. What is best under these circumstances is that instead of isolating Fidesz, Members of the European Parliament, regardless of their party group, should act like a critical friend to Fidesz and Hungary by constantly reminding them of the core values of the EU. And they should keep the Hungarian government accountable to the European Parliament, using the available legal mechanisms.

In fact in May 2017 the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs was instructed to examine the situation in Hungary after serious concern was raised about the situation in Hungary. Last week Thursday the committee recommended triggering disciplinary proceedings that could result in Hungary losing its voting rights in the European Council. The draft report found that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government “time and time again … has undermined the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the fundamental rights of its citizens.” This draft report was not well received by the leadership of Fidesz, denying all the criticisms that have been put forward. The timing of this report is however perfect for there has been a new election, and Fidesz has gained a new term in office, which gives the Hungarian government a new chance to make a fresh start and work on some of the points that have been raised in the report.

Overall there seems to be pressure building on the freedom of media in Hungary. Critical voices seem to be facing a risk of closure or shutdown. However the newly elected government might change its position in the way it treats media and the opposition. It is only healthy that the electoral success of Fidesz is a cause of contention among the party groups of the European Parliament. If the interests of the party groups could be left aside, different mechanism of the European Parliament could be utilised to influence the way things are done in Hungary. Having Fidesz MEPs in the centre-right EPP is an advantage and must be utilised for the greater good of the EU.

As for the next couple of months, the European Parliament’s draft report will go to a vote in committee in June and to the full Parliament in September. If the Parliament approves the proposal, the matter would move to the European Council. Thus I will be keeping an eye on this.

 

The post Post-elections in Hungary— Fidesz, failed opposition and European Union! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

International Space Station. Photo: ESA

Nicolas Rüffin

Science diplomacy has attracted a lot of attention during the last decade. Actors as different as the US State Department, the European Commission, the Royal Society, UNESCO and a great many of other intermediary organizations have adopted the term to rebrand their activities, programs, and agendas. The contexts in which the term science diplomacy emerges are just as diverse as the actors. It almost seems like science has become a panacea for most of the problems in public policymaking. For instance, when looking through the volumes of the journal Science & Diplomacy, we encounter topics like the global challenges, health diplomacy, issues of security and proliferation, international mega-science projects, and trade policies, not to mention regional priorities like the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East, or East Asia.

 

The rise of the concept of science diplomacy

Science diplomacy thus is first and foremost a new umbrella term to characterize the role of science and technology in numerous policy fields that have an international, boundary-spanning, component. As a matter of fact, a number of examples and documents illustrate that considerations regarding science and technology (S&T) have played a role in international policymaking before (e.g. Neureiter & Turekian, 2012). For instance, policy instruments like bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs) have been used at least since the 1950s (Rüffin & Schreiterer, 2017). These STAs formed a global network of legal commitments long before any remarks on a strategic use of science diplomacy emerged.

 

However, the scope and number of S&T related policies have increased over time. For instance, we are witnessing the emergence and differentiation of agencies explicitly dedicated to matters of international science policymaking (Flink & Schreiterer, 2010; Rüffin, 2018). Several countries, including Germany, the UK, Switzerland, and Denmark, have established S&T outposts abroad in order to access new markets, buttress their innovation capacities, and to foster bilateral relationships. In addition, non-state actors like academies or research associations pursue their own objectives in terms of international science policy. They maintain offices overseas, conclude collaboration agreements, and some even establish joint research laboratories (e.g. the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique or the German Max-Planck Society). The idea of science diplomacy, then, provides a new, more strategic and—more or less—coherent framework to integrate existing instruments in international S&T policymaking. Actors use the concept to propel their own agenda regardless of policy field or research area.

 

From my point of view, there are two items on the current research agenda regarding science diplomacy: The aspirations for the meaningful, “optimal” use of the concept (Van Langenhove, 2017) and the scholarly reflection on its role in a broader context.

 

Future directions for science diplomacy

There are several well-known and often cited examples of successful science diplomacy. For instance, physicists were the trailblazers in establishing diplomatic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel in the 1950s. The Pugwash conferences provided venues for low-key exchanges between scientists and policymakers from Western and Eastern countries during the Cold War. International research organizations like the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, or the International Space Station, ISS, illustrate the opportunities that emerge if international partners join forces to pursue daring and high-quality big science research.

 

But aside from these famous examples, we know that the systematic implementation of the concept of science diplomacy faces serious challenges. Sometimes, scientists and officials from research organizations even are reluctant to use the term, stating that they would rather prefer to stay “under the radar” of politics. It is true that science diplomacy, as a type of track 2 diplomacy, always constitutes a balancing act between governmental interests and scientific autonomy. A strategic use of science diplomacy must take these concerns into account. Moreover, questions arise from the tension between competition versus collaboration of different actors.

 

In Europe, both the European Commission and a great number of Member States are engaging in science diplomacy, yet the relations between the different players, the division of labor as it where, often remains unclear. Propelling European science diplomacy thus means that the stakeholders must define the domains of (shared) responsibility, explore areas of common interests, and coordinate joint programs where advisable. Hence, scholars should investigate the subjects where science diplomacy can contribute to the peaceful and sustainable coexistence, increased scientific collaboration, and eased tensions between countries across the globe. But they should also continue to examine the limitations of the concept and how it might play into increasingly tough economic competitions and races for innovation. Overall, researchers should be aware that they contribute to the evolution of the concept by introducing new tools, structuring established instruments, and by identifying new applications.

 

Contemplating the nature of science diplomacy

However, it is important to remember that science diplomacy is only one expression of a broader “elusive transformation” of policymaking (Skolnikoff, 1993). We need to put science diplomacy into perspective by drawing connections to other mega-trends in science policy like the turn towards innovation and the increasing importance of the global challenges. This strand of research could include historical studies on the origins of the concept, analyses of coalition building, or in-depth case studies of how foreign affairs and S&T interact.

 

Luckily, the community of researchers engaging with science diplomacy—both in substantial and in reflexive ways—is growing. Already, scientists from many countries are contributing to this endeavor, and within Horizon 2020, there are a number of projects that advance the study and implementation of science diplomacy (e.g. EL-CSID, InsSciDE, and S4D4C).

 

After all, science diplomacy is a moving target and it will be interesting to watch which directions, trajectories and shapes the concept will take in the future.

 

Nicolas Rüffin is Research Fellow of the President’s Project Group at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. He joined the WZB in 2016, after receiving a master’s degree in science studies from the Humboldt-University of Berlin, and a bachelor’s degree in business psychology from the University of Bochum. Before moving to Berlin, he had worked as Programme Manager at Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, a joint initiative of companies and foundations for the advancement of education, science, and innovation in Germany. His research mainly focuses on issues of international science policy, the politics of intergovernmental big science projects, and science diplomacy.

 

References

Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: towards a typology of national approaches. Science and Public Policy 37(9), 665–677.

Rüffin, N. (2018): Science and Innovation Diplomacy Agencies at the Nexus of Research, Economics, and Politics. EL-CSID Working Papers 10. Brussels: Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Rüffin, N., & Schreiterer, U. (2017): Science and Technology Agreements in the Toolbox of Science Diplomacy. Effective Instruments or Insignificant Add-ons?. EL-CSID Working Papers 6. Brussels: Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Skolnikoff, E. B. (1993). The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology, and the Evolution of International Politics. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Turekian, VC; Neureiter, NP (2012) Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue. Science & Diplomacy. A Quarterly publication from the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. March, 2012; http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/science-and-diplomacy

Van Langenhove, L. (2017). Tools for an EU Science Diplomacy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

 

The post Science diplomacy – a catch-all concept in public policy? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The reality of Brexit is now sinking in fast. It can’t be delivered. That’s why we need another vote.

Government ministers promised that Brexit will give us “the exact same benefits” as we have today.

That’s impossible. That’s why we need another vote.

Last year Brexit Secretary, David Davis, promised a trade and customs agreement with the EU “that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have.”

Prime Minister, Theresa May, also said that Brexit can have “the same benefits” as we have now for free trade with the EU.

Also promised by the government:

no hard border on the island of Ireland or across the UK;

an agreement with the EU that’s fully negotiated by March next year;

no payment for access to the EU market;

a complete end to EU rules and regulations;

converting around 40 EU trade agreements with 65 countries into UK bespoke deals “one second after midnight” on 30 March 2019.

Promises, promises, promises.

And the truth? These promises cannot be delivered.

In a business, if a company reneges on its promises, the customer can cancel the deal and claim compensation.

In a democracy, when a government reneges on its promises, the people – us – should be able to give its verdict. In a vote.

The people’s vote.

Because the promises of Brexit can’t be delivered.

The government knows this. They are desperate for the UK to continue to enjoy EU membership benefits of frictionless trade after Brexit, because they know that our economy’s survival depends on it.

But the government is pretending to us that we can continue to enjoy these membership benefits as an ex-member:

without being part of the EU Single Market or customs union;

without agreeing to the rules of the EU and its market;

without being subject to the European Court of Justice to oversee those rules;

and without paying anything to the EU for access.

It’s not going to happen. Mrs May knows this.

Before the referendum, she prominently stated:

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

Yet that’s exactly what Mrs May now wants. She says she aims to achieve a new agreement with the European Union that’s unique to us, that no other country in the world has ever achieved.

Of course, it’s not going to happen.

What’s the point of a club if you are going to allow non-members to enjoy the same or better benefits as members? What club allows that?

So, here’s the bottom line:

Britain needs frictionless trade with the EU.

We need free movement of goods, services, capital and people for our country not just to survive, but to thrive.

We need to continue with the status quo: the arrangement we have now.

Has this sunk in yet?

We’re leaving all the benefits of the EU, only for our government to desperately try and get back as many of those benefits as we can after we’ve left, but on considerably inferior terms.

This is complete and utter madness. The government cannot offer us anything better than we have now; only something worse.

That being the case, it will be wiser to keep the current arrangement: to stay in the EU. It will be cheaper, and we will all be better off.

That’s why we need another vote.

As an EU member:

we have a say and votes in the running, rules and future direction of our continent;

we have full and free access to the world’s largest free marketplace;

we enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent;

we enjoy state healthcare and education when living and working in any other EU country;

we enjoy free or low-cost health care when visiting any EU nation;

we are protected by continent-wide rights that protect us at work, when shopping and travelling;

we benefit from laws that protect our environment (and have, for example, directly resulted in Britain’s beaches being cleaned up);

we enjoy excellent EU trade agreements with around 60 countries, with more on the way, on advantageous terms that Britain is unlikely ever to replicate.

And what are we gaining from Brexit? Surely something?

No. All the reasons given to leave in the referendum were based on false promises that cannot be delivered.

More sovereignty? Nonsense. We’ll get less.

In the EU, we gain a share of sovereignty of our continent. Outside the EU, we’ll still live on a planet and have to obey thousands of international laws and treaties.

We share sovereignty with NATO, for example. Is that a reason to leave it?

Outside the EU, we will only be able to look on as decisions about Europe are made without us, even though those decisions will affect us just as much, whether we’re a member or not.

 Fewer migrants? Really? Just think about it.

Most EU migrants in Britain are in gainful employment, doing jobs that we simply don’t have enough Britons to do. So if they all left, we’d have to replace them with about the same numbers of migrants as we have now to get all those jobs done. What’s the point of that?

More houses, schools and hospitals? Think again.

Without EU migrants we’ll have fewer builders, teachers, doctors and nurses. Migrants are not the cause of our problems. Blaming them just excuses successive UK governments from investing sufficiently in our country.

Get our country back? We never lost it.

If being in the EU means losing your country, why aren’t the 27 other EU member states complaining?

With Brexit, we won’t be getting our country back. But we will be losing a leading place and role on our continent.

Our own laws? The vast majority of laws in the UK are our laws and passed by our Parliament in Westminster.

But in the EU, we benefit from laws for our continent that no single European country alone could ever achieve. Could our UK government have got mobile phone companies to scrap mobile roaming charges across the entire EU? Of course not.

It took the might of 28 EU countries working together to achieve that, and so much more.

 More trade for the UK as an ex-member? Another false promise.

The EU is the world’s largest free trade area. As a member, we receive huge benefits worth billions more to Britain than the net annual membership fee of £7.1 billion a year.

As a member, we enjoy free, frictionless trade with our biggest trading partner by far, right on our doorstep, where almost 50% of our exports go to and over 50% of our imports come from.

Nowhere else in the world comes close to that. Nowhere in the world can replace that.
________________________________

The bottom line? Brexit cannot be delivered as promised. The Brexit people voted for on 23 June 2016 was a mirage. It does not exist. It cannot happen.

That’s why we need another vote. To give our new verdict, not on the fake Brexit that was sold to the nation in the referendum, but on the real and entirely different Brexit that the government now wants to impose on us.

The ‘people’s vote’ on the final Brexit deal? Bring it on.

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

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

The post Why we need another vote on Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

A couple of weeks ago my article ‘Subnational transnational networking and the continuing process of local-level Europeanization’ was formally published in the latest issue of European Urban and Regional Studies (an open access version can be found here).

The article explores how local government transnational networking has developed since the 1990s. ‘Transnational networking’ essentially involves local authorities in one country linking up and co-operating with local authorities in other countries. This can be broken down into three categories:

• Bilateral networking: involving two local authorities in different countries.
• Multilateral networking: involving three of more local authorities, often facilitated through an organisational structure.
• Transnational projects: involving co-operation between at least two local authorities which is time-limited and focusing on delivering a specific project.

This activity goes beyond the more traditional civic / cultural town-twinning links, with local authorities co-operating on substantive policy areas.

To see how much this activity developed since the 1990s I looked at the European networking activities of local authorities in South East England and Northern France. These regions were chosen because they were the focus of a lot of attention in the 1990s, and this research (such as this) provided a nice baseline to assess more contemporary networking activities.

Over a ten year period (2001-2011) I found that 14 local authorities were involved in 302 transnational links with other local authorities in Europe, either directly or through multilateral networks or transnational projects. A lot of these transnational links overlap and this leads to a picture of complexity:

Overall, there’s been a substantial increase on what was going on in the 1990s. This is partly explained by developments in European integration. EU enlargement to central and eastern Europe in 2004 provided many more partners to co-operate with. A gradual increase in the EU’s policy competences also provided more areas for local authorities to co-operate on. In this way, an increase in opportunities to co-operate has led to a natural increase in co-operation itself.

The nature of this co-operation has also changed. While much activity in the 1990s was about developing bilateral partnerships, the focus now has shifted to multilateral networking, where local authorities participate in EU level networking organisations, such as Eurocities, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions and the Assembly of European Regions, reflecting changes in how the EU policy process has evolved and become increasingly receptive to interest representation. The number of transnational projects has also increased, as eligibility for EU-funded programmes such as Interreg have expended.

So, local authority engagement in transnational networking has increased. But not all councils follow the same pattern. Some (like Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais) were quite heavily involved. Others (like Portsmouth and Picardie) only had limited engagement. Brittany and Hampshire seemed to prefer taking part in multilateral networks over bilateral partnerships, while East Sussex preferred striking direct partnerships through bilateral networks. Medway, Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais were involved in a large number of transnational projects, partly reflecting their geographical locations and eligibility for various funding programmes.

A lot of this variation is down to local level factors such as the strategic objectives of individual councils and the importance they give to transnational networking. Local political leadership is also important here. Councils with dedicated political portfolios for external engagement were generally more involved. Previous experience of transnational networking also seems to be a factor. For example, Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais led the way with transnational networking in the 1990s and continued to do so during the 2000s.

So the overall picture is one where local authorities have become increasingly linked with their counterparts in other European countries and become more ‘Europeanised’. But it’s important to remember transnational networking remains a voluntary activity. It only takes place where opportunities to take part are present and often depends on a range of local level factors. This speaks to wider research on Europeanisation at the national level, which also finds a range of national factors mediate the overall impact of Europe.

Given the context of Brexit, this obviously has implications for local government in the UK. Will councils continue to co-operate with their European counterparts once the UK leaves the EU? On the one hand, Brexit by definition will lead to a reduction in opportunities for local authorities to engage at the EU level. However, the UK government has also suggested it wants to continue participating in programmes such as Interreg which has facilitated much of this co-operation. And EU membership isn’t a prerequisite for participating in transnational networking. Many Swiss and Norwegian localities have a presence at the European level, and many transnational networks (such as the C40 cities and nrg4SD) operate on a global scale. The future of UK local authorities networking with their counterparts in Europe will ultimately depend on the opportunities available to them. Until the outcomes of Brexit become clearer, much of this won’t be known.

The post The development and future of local government transnational networking appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Are we done yet?

Long time no see. At this particular moment a lot is going on around the EU. We are slowly preparing ourselves for an EU budget proposal beyond 2020 at the beginning of May. This exercise highlights main policy areas of Member State’s interest. The EU budget currently funds some of the most well-known and important EU programmes: Erasmus+, European Solidarity Corps, Horizon 2020, Galileo and the Cohesion policy. Although, if you go on any street in Europe and ask some random people about those programmes, they will not be able to say almost anything about them. OK, except for Erasmus. I think we all agree that the Erasmus takes it all. Unfortunately, the EU success story cannot always tell us very nice stories about studying abroad. It needs some new fuel. 

Close circle

What strikes me right now, in our debate about the EU is the failure of courage to protect this great project. This is in fact the biggest international cooperation on a global scale. Do not get me wrong, all pro-EU initiatives are super important (go and visit WhyEurope – super good initiative!!), but living in a heart of Europe, in Brussels, make me even more aware of the fact that our activities are somehow “blocked” for the public.

Part of my work here includes my presence at different conferences and seminars. The main aim is to grasp (yes, very unequal level of events) crucial and important information about the EU activities. A lot about EU policies, programmes and projects, initiatives, opinions, results, research, innovative ideas… Endless pages of notes. Hundreds emails. No one reads my report since it contains more than 170 words. You see how big words change your thinking, but not the reality around. When I hear “dissemination” in the EU context, I am ready to run as far as possible… I know that this means sending out information without any specific strategy and target group. As a result, it is rather a spamming exercise with a limited patient on the other side.

Even closer circle

I am still waiting for any EU campaign which will rock our minds. I strongly believe it is possible, but a nice animation is not the key element for that. You have to be less formal, less correct, less naive… People remember emotions, so get to their emotions. The best thing is that I know a lot of people working in the European Commission, which good ideas are immediately cut at the lowest level by the top people, who do not understand or are too bored already to be involved and let some fresh air into the room. What happens now is of your own making. Nothing great in this world happened, because someone was following blindly existing at that point in time rules. The same story with the EU. Some courage was needed to foreseen this kind of project.

Therefore, as long as the EC (since this institution represents the EU voice in its pure definition) does not let some people out of the box (desks), we will not see any change in the process. Currently, it is difficult to deny the fact that the EU is too far from its citizens to be understood.

The post Where is the EU? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Feedback is important for a research project, and it is central to student project work at Roskilde University, both as peer-feedback between students and feedback from supervisors.

Feedback enables the students to engage in a dialogue with peers and with their supervisor about how to progress with their project ideas, develop coherent research strategies and write up research projects.  We all know from our own research how useful it is to get comments from colleagues and often we hear ‘you have at least two papers in this paper’. Giving and receiving feedback enables the students to reflect on how to improve their projects. The Danish word for feedback is ‘konstrutiv kritik’ (constructive criticism), which have negative connotation for many. It is important that feedback is giving through an open dialogue, where comments are received as suggestions for how to develop the project further.

The problem area seminar is one of the first opportunities the students have for receiving feedback on their research statement, a two-page document outlining the group’s research topic, research questions, proposed methods and possible theories. The problem area seminar consists of three to four groups and one supervisor. The supervisor’s role is to facilitate the feedback between the groups and to give comments to all the groups.  In advance of the problem area seminar, the students receive a guidelines about what they should emphasise in their feedback. Not all students are familiar with giving feedback, so the guideline aims to help the groups identify gaps in the research statements.  The aim of peer-feedback is for students to learn how to give feedback and learn from other students. Moreover, strong groups sometimes complain that the feedback they received was not useful. Other students get confused if the supervisor present during problem area seminar is not their supervisor, and might offer different advice from their supervisor. Indeed, one of the key lessons of receiving feedback is to understand which comments are useful – just think of some of the comments we sometimes receive from reviewers!

Importantly, the groups are required to take contact to their supervisor and set up the first supervision meeting. The onus on the students to contact their supervisor is instrumental in the pedagogical principle of being responsible for own learning. However, some supervisors contact their groups first to let them know of his/her availability.  In supervision meetings, students often ask questions about the role of methodology, which reflects the interdisciplinary element of the degree, where the BA programme requires the students to carry out interdisciplinary projects. For example, the second semester project must include two of the four basic courses (political science, sociology, economics and human geography) thereby ensuring that the projects are interdisciplinary.

Students might write a sociology project one semester and an economic project another semester, as a result they will have supervisors from different disciplines. Similar the students become good at navigating between different disciplines, but they struggle to understand that interdisciplinary projects do not involve one economic chapter and one political science chapter. Indeed, I spent considerable time during project group formation and teaching qualitative methods to explain that inter-disciplinary research is a marble cake not a layer cake! Hopefully, the students got the message and have developed inter-disciplinary research statements and thus projects.

Other students just want to study one subject and struggle to develop interdisciplinary research projects, here, the role of the supervisor is important to make sure the students fulfil the project requirements. Moreover, the supervisor helps the students with literature suggestions, gives comment on draft chapters, and helps the students to use the feedback from the problem area seminar constructively in their project progress. Overall, feedback, both from fellow students and supervisor, aim to give the project group suggestions for finishing their project.

The post Student projects: giving & receiving feedback appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

In my last blog entry of 1st March, I talked about the possibility of Hungarian opposition political parties’ uniting forces against Fidesz in this General elections of 8th April and have speculated if Fidesz would live up to its statement that it would not use ‘Soros’ in their election campaign.  So what happened in the past four weeks? Did the opposition political parties form alliances? Is Soros still part of Fidesz’ election campaign material? How is Fidesz doing in the opinion polls? Is Jobbik losing ground on this election trail? Are Greens and the Socialists doing better? What pledges have been made in relation to the EU?

So far the opposition political parties did not form any alliance between them. The major opposition political party Jobbik refuses to negotiate with the Socialist Party (MSZP) and the Democratic Coalition, but suggests that it could talk to the LMP Green and the Momentum after elections. Likewise the Left and the socialist parties reject to have any form of interaction with Jobbik. I believe this means that the opposition political parties will not unite against Fidesz, at least not before the elections, but there is hope for post-elections.

George Soros is still at the top of agenda in Fidesz’s election rallies and is the most mentioned about during this election campaign. This will probably continue to be the case until the end of the elections. At the same time Fidesz remains to be the most popular in the opinion polls, it is polling around 50 % among the decided voters; hence is very likely to form the next government. However this is not because the opposition political parties are least popular, but because they are most divided, making the opposition significantly weak, unable to have the necessary number of seats to stand strong against Fidesz. Also it is not because Fidesz is pledging policies that would make some serious changes in the way the country is run, but because it is turning a blind eye to Hungary’s social, political and economic problems. On the contrary, immigration and Soros are the two single and intertwined issues that make up the rhetoric adopted by Fidesz at this election campaign. When it comes to immigration, Fidesz’s Viktor Orban can go as far as to reject EU’s migrant quotas and the United Nation’s Global Compact on Migration plan in its current form. He said that if migration becomes a human right, this would be a recipe for destroying the Earth, leading to a primitive humanity.

Whereas Jobbik that was once recognised as a radical and nationalist political party, which has now shifted to centre-ground, happen to find Fidesz’s position on immigration and Soros as extreme, suggesting that Fidesz is using Soros as a tool to scare the people and distract them from important problems. Furthermore Jobbik makes innovative policy promises that both could attract young people and could benefit the Hungarian people. For instance Jobbik’s leader Gabor Vona promises instead of party-political or communications political governance, they would introduce expert governance, and who would give the leading positions to those who have the most relevant expertise. And he proposes to introduce e-referendum and e-consultations as a means for soliciting social feedback. Political commentators predict that Jobbik will do much better in the election than it is expected, undecided voters are likely to opt for Jobbik this time, it is suggested. I think however that the unsavoury past of Jobbik will make voters think twice in the voting booth, while doubting sincerity of Jobbik’s leadership.

The Green LMP and the Socialists do not entirely seem to be part of this election campaign; there is not much media coverage on what they are proposing or on what they are up to. There may be many reasons for this, but this is not the right platform to speculate. I think these parties most probably will maintain their low profile/small party position in the Hungarian politics post-elections.

As for European Union, 4-6 weeks ago, Orban refused to take part in Macron’s consultation on the future of the EU, but now he said that ‘let’s hold them and each nation should make the best use of its national practices’. It is promising to see that Orban can change his mind on this matter and be part of the crowd. Moreover while the EU wanted to decide on the migrant quote issue in the current cycle of the European Parliament, Orban wishes that he could prevent that from taking place, pointing to the European Parliament elections of 2019, suggesting that the anti-immigration forces are to make advances and change the face of the EU on immigration. Fidesz is already forging alliances with other EU anti-immigration political parties such as the Italian Five Star Movement and the Austrian Social Democratic Party and Freedom Party. This means that if Fidesz wins this general election, which is very likely, then its anti-immigration stance and rhetoric will only get stronger and more effective with its newly formed alliances both at domestic and at the EU levels.

The post Ahead of Hungarian General Elections—issues, pledges and campaign rhetoric (II) appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It’s one year ago today that Prime Minister Theresa May triggered the Article 50 notice for the UK to leave the EU.

29 March 2017 will not be celebrated in history. It’s the day that Britain’s interests were betrayed.

Almost all of Theresa May’s current cabinet said during the EU referendum campaign that Brexit would damage Britain, make us poorer, put our security at risk, and could undo our own union of the four countries of the United Kingdom.

But the Prime Minister and her ministers went ahead with Brexit anyway, against their own strong advice to the nation not to.

This is how I reported the triggering of Article 50 this time last year:

TRIGGER HAPPY THERESA HAS BETRAYED THE COUNTRY

SHE’S GONE AND BLOODY DONE IT – the one thing she said just one year ago would not be in Britain’s best interests. She’s triggered Brexit.

Theresa May has gone against her own advice that Britain shouldn’t leave the EU.

Not just her advice. But the strong advice of 70% of her cabinet ministers, who also less than a year ago urged the country not to Brexit.

Why are they doing it? Because people told them to? Does that make any sense? If people told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Would you volunteer to do it?

Because Mrs May and most of her cabinet have volunteered to do something they all said would be bad for Britain. In doing so, they are betraying our country.

They are doing something that, by their own admission, will not be in the nation’s best interests, but on the contrary, most definitely against our interests.

Two-faced Theresa today formally wrote to the European Union to trigger Article 50, starting two-years of gruelling divorce proceedings that could forever ruin our relations with the mainland of our continent.

She should listen once again to the speech she gave on 25 April last year. Then she said:

“I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.”

And she also said then:

“My judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.”

As for replacing the trade we do with the EU with other markets, she asserted that this would be an unrealistic route. She said:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

And there were other serious risks too.

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”

And other risks too.

“Outside the EU, for example, we would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which has allowed us to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years, and bring 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals to Britain to face justice.”

And leaving the EU, she said, could lead to the disintegration of the EU, resulting in “massive instability” with “real consequences for Britain.”

In addition, Brexit might prove fatal to “the Union between England and Scotland”, which she did not want to happen.

And if Britain left the EU, she argued, we might not be successful in negotiating a successful divorce settlement.

Explained Mrs May,:

“In a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44 per cent of our exports is more important to us than eight per cent of the EU’s exports is to them.”

She added, “The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market.

“We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined.

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

And in summary, Mrs May said:

“Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores.”

Most of Theresa May’s cabinet were of the same view: Leaving the EU would be against Britain’s interests, it would represent a disaster for our country.

• Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond said: We will be safer, stronger and better off if we remain in the EU.

• Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: I passionately believe it is best for us all and our country if we remain a member of the EU.

• Justice Secretary Liz Truss said: I don’t want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe.

• Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon said: Make no mistake – a vote to Leave would be payday for Putin.

• Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt said: We will be better off and more secure by remaining in the European Union.

• Education Secretary, Justine Greening said: Staying in the EU is smart diplomacy and smart economics.

• Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley said: If you want a stronger, safer, better off Britain, then the positive choice is to vote Remain.

• Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green said: Leaving the EU would cause huge economic damage.

And so on, ad nauseam. The Prime Minister, and the majority of her government ministers, strongly urged Britain to remain in the EU in the interests of the country’s prosperity and security.

So, what’s happened to them all? Were they stupid then and clever now?

No.

Before the referendum, these politicians said what they sincerely believed to be in the best interests of Britain. But after the referendum, these politicians are saying and doing what they insincerely believe will be in the best interests of themselves.

Future history books will have a collective noun for them. Hypocrites.

Fortunately, it will prove to be their downfall.

Unfortunately, it’s likely to lead to our country’s downfall too.

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

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

The post They said Brexit would damage Britain appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Brexit has two-faced double-standards and nobody knows what or who to believe.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, says that three million EU migrants in the UK are too many; they take our jobs, they cause a burden to our housing and hospitals; they have zero value.

On the other hand, she said in an open letter to all EU migrants that we need you all; we’ll be poorer without you; please don’t go.

Yesterday, Home Secretary, Amber Rudd MP, said that the government was “committed” to reducing the numbers of EU migrants, despite Theresa May’s Christmas letter to them all saying the country would be poorer without them.

Ms Rudd told MPs:

“I’m still focused on making sure we reduce net migration to sustainable levels.”

But in an open letter in December to all EU migrants in the UK, Theresa May wrote:

“I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make – enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life. I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.”

So, what do you believe? That too many EU migrants have been coming to the country, or that we need them all and we want them to stay?

No wonder the country is confused. Brexit means forked-tongue nonsense.

Mrs May previously said that Britain has too many EU migrants, and we need to bring numbers down to a trickle.

But if that had happened, we wouldn’t now have the three million EU migrants that she recently said the country can’t do without.

Many people believed Mrs May when she said Britain has too many EU migrants.

Many voted for Leave for that very reason. They voted so we would have fewer migrants.

They voted because Mrs May said she’d bring the numbers down.

But then just three months ago, Mrs May said we needed all the numbers of EU migrants that are here.

There weren’t too many after all. The country will be poorer without them.

Does Mrs May and her Brexit government really know what they’re doing?

They’re messing with people’s heads; and their hearts, and their lives.

If Mrs May sincerely thinks that all the hard-working, upstanding, law-abiding, tax-paying EU migrants in the UK are needed and wanted, why didn’t she say so before the EU referendum?

Instead, at the Tory conference immediately prior to the referendum, she said the current numbers of EU migrants in the UK are of zero value. Yes, she did.

As Home Secretary, in her speech to the Tory Party faithful in October 2015 she said, “..at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero.”

High immigration to her then represented the three million EU migrants in the UK.

The front-page headline in the Telegraph the next day was her mantra that migration is “harming society”, causing ‘thousands of British people to be forced out of their jobs.’

She said then that, “when immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society.”

She added:

“It’s difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope. And we know that for people in low-paid jobs, wages are forced down even further while some people are forced out of work altogether.”

She blamed too many foreign students (how can she possibly call students migrants?) and too many EU migrants.

She said, “The numbers coming from Europe are unsustainable and the rules have to change.”

She quoted her party’s manifesto, ‘we must work to control immigration and put Britain first’.

But just this last Christmas Mrs May said,

“As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am proud that more than three million EU citizens have chosen to make your homes and livelihoods here in our country.”

She add, “I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay”.

Oh, so now those three million EU migrants are welcome here, when Mrs May previously made clear that she didn’t want them here (at least not in those numbers).

Mrs May said at Christmas that she is proud that those three million EU migrants made their homes and livelihoods in our country

But she previously said they were stealing our jobs and putting pressure on our schools, hospitals, homes and wages.

Does Mrs May and her cabinet really understand what is true and untrue?

The fact is that Mrs May, her government, and her Brexit are entirely two-faced.

Brexit involves double standards. Is that really what Britain voted for on one summer’s day in June 2016?

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

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

The post Brexit is one big double-standard appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This blog post was original published as part of the BISA Postgraduate Network blog series. 

 

 

More and more British universities offer modules on the study of the European Union (EU). These allow students to learn how the institutions of the EU function and how its policies are made. The debate on how to best teach European Studies is not new. Academic associations, like BISA, frequently organise events and panels on this topic. With the UK’s decision to leave the EU, however, teaching European studies has become a new challenge at British universities. In large part, this is because of the diverging perceptions of, and growing uncertainty caused by, Brexit. This has triggered a new debate[1] about how best to teach EU studies in light of the changing EU-UK relationship.

During my time at the University of Kent, I have taught the ‘Politics of the European Union’ module. Whilst I have enjoyed my teaching on this module, I have met several challenges. Reflecting on these experiences, this blog entry explores some of the challenges and opportunities I have faced teaching the EU after Brexit.

 

The Challenges of Teaching European/EU Studies during Brexit

Teaching topics of contemporary significance, particularly those as polarising as Brexit, can increase the engagement with the teaching material. At the same time, however, they can also bring about frustration. The negotiations between the UK government and the EU are still ongoing. No final outcome has been agreed. Every day social media and newspapers are overloaded with information on the current state of the Brexit negotiations and their implications. Yet, a lot of this information is blurred and often fails to present the whole picture of the negotiation process

Providing students with the correct information and details in this chaos is much more complicated than with more static topics (IR theory courses come to mind here). Remaining constantly up-to-date also presents another challenge. Students like to stay abreast of the breaking developments, and it is important to come to seminars as prepared as possible. In some instances, new information about the negotiation process was announced after I had finished preparing for my seminars. Thanks to media alerts and online media source, it was possible to also inform students on the most recent developments during class.

To develop their understanding of the EU, my students were tasked to give a 3-minute presentation on an issue they were interested in concerning the EU from a non-British newspaper. In addition to their core readings they were encouraged to follow the media on a weekly basis. I provided a list of newspaper outlets, think tanks and other media sources, and on the Moodle page either the lecturer or I regularly uploaded relevant material on the Brexit negotiations. This allowed the students to get insights from outside the UK, and we hoped to diversify their views on European issues. Students made use of newspapers from the Czech Republic, France and Spain as well as from Australia and the US. In terms of the British media, they followed newspapers ranging from The Daily Mail to The Guardian and The Economist.

What we quickly found, however, is that students often lacked sufficient background information on EU institutions needed to understand what was reported in the media. In order to overcome this issue, we discussed the EU institutions in class and linked them to the media presentations which we had asked the students to prepare. These discussions turned out to be rather opinionated, and not always based on facts and evidence, which has proven to be tricky. What we found is that the use of smaller groups discussions was particularly helpful in encouraging the students to broaden their understanding of the EU, and this later fed into both their debates and presentations.

Discussing the EU and Europe also brings about emotions[2]. The seminar groups were not only a good mix of British, European, and other international students, but were also divided into Leavers and Remainers. Talking about the possible outcomes of Brexit triggered certain emotions in the students, which I – as their seminar leader – had to deal with. While some students were disappointed and frustrated about the negotiation process, others became more and more convinced of the necessity of Brexit. This led to tensions in the classroom. Since everybody has an opinion on the UK’s membership in the EU and on Brexit, teaching the issue as objective as possible posed another challenge which needed to be overcome. We therefore generalised the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership in more abstract terms, and with the help of other European students’ own experience we compared EU membership across several other states. This not only lead to fruitful exchanges and debates, but also helped to illustrate similar perceptions among EU member states

 

 

 

The Opportunities of Teaching European/EU Studies during Brexit

Teaching the EU in the context of Brexit also presents many opportunities. Students seem to be generally interested in the topic, and this was especially the case for British students. This has been demonstrated not only by high seminar attendance, but also by the mid-term and end of term evaluations. Some student comments showed that they particularly enjoyed taking the module thanks to its relevance to their daily lives and the innovative use of newspapers and social media. Regarding the latter, we found that drawing on information from the news and social media helped keep the student’s interest since they increasingly make use of these tools and channels to acquire information and knowledge. Being able to receive input from a variety of sources also diversifies the views and perspectives on the EU.

Throughout the term we had very lively discussions on the functioning of the EU as well as on its various policies. Issues such as the Customs Union and the Single Market, as well as the EU’s external relations, were of high interest among the students. Every student had an opinion of some kind of the EU and on the UK’s position in the negotiation process. This encouraged all the students to participate and conduct extended research to prepare for the seminar sessions. As mentioned above, at times the heated discussions were challenging, yet they were also very stimulating on both sides.

European/EU studies attracts a variety of students from various backgrounds. These students all bring their own understandings, biases of and visions for the European Union. This has allowed for a informative and exciting exchange of ideas between the students. All students were encouraged to share their personal perceptions of the policies as well as workings and developments of the EU. In this context, everyone reflected on their experiences with the EU and shared them with the others. The aim of reflecting here was to critically engage and to build a personal relationship with the EU, and to see how certain events fit into the larger picture of the EU.

Lastly, as someone who has worked within one of the EU institutions and who researches one of the EU’s policy areas, teaching European Studies during the Brexit negotiations also gave me an opportunity to integrate my research and experiences into my teaching. My students valued this and appreciated anecdotes from the so-called ‘EU Bubble’. Combining my research topic and work experience with teaching did not only save time for the preparations, but also added value to the teaching since some students consider working for the EU or a Brussels-based interest group in the future.

 

Conclusion

Overall, the debate on how to teach European Studies in times of the Brexit negotiations has gained increasing importance. Even in light of the letter sent to university Vice Chancellors by MP Chris Heaton-Harris[3] in early October 2017, who demanded information on how Brexit and the EU are taught at British universities, the topic should not quench any lecturer or teaching assistant to take on this endeavour. Instead, the debate on how we perceive and understand the EU, as well as its future relationship with the UK, presents both challenges and opportunities for postgraduates who teach.

 

[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/career-advice-how-teach-brexit (accessed on 12/02/2018)

[2] http://ukandeu.ac.uk/public-emotions-as-an-indicator-of-the-outcomes-of-the-brexit-negotiations/ (accessed on 12/02/2018)

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris (accessed on 12/02/2018)

 

Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters is a PhD Candidate and Teaching Assistant at the University of Kent.

The post Teaching European Studies in Times of Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

One year ago, on 27 March 2017, Labour said it would hold the Tories to their pledge to keep the exact same benefits of the EU Single Market after Brexit. Of course, that can’t happen unless the UK is in the Single Market, accepting its rules including Free Movement of People.

This was my commentary at the time:

In a significant shift in Labour’s position, Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will oppose any Brexit deal that doesn’t offer Britain the exact same benefits as being in the EU Single Market and customs union.

It’s a welcome new stance by Labour, and although a little late (where was Labour’s strong stance in the Brexit Bill debate?) it’s hopefully not too late.

But in the same breath, Sir Keir has said that Free Movement of People “has to go when we exit the EU..” Doesn’t he realise that Free Movement of People is a key benefit of the Single Market and an essential requirement to be in the Single Market?

Labour still seems confused about the EU. By now, Sir Keir should realise that it’s impossible for Britain to enjoy the ‘exact same benefits’ of the EU without being in the EU.

So instead of fudging Brexit, Labour should come clean and say it loud and clear: Britain can only enjoy the same benefits it enjoys now by staying in the EU. Labour should be fighting tooth and nail to #StopBrexit.

Here was my report from 27 March 2017:

→ LABOUR WILL OPPOSE BREXIT UNLESS IT MEETS SIX TESTS

In a significant hardening of Labour’s position, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show yestereday that Labour will oppose any Brexit deal unless it meets ‘six tests.’

In particular, any Brexit deal must offer the “exact same benefits” the UK currently has from the EU Single Market and customs union.

Here’s an extract of Andrew Marr’s interview with Sir Keith in which he announced Labour’s new ‘red lines’ on Brexit:

ANDREW MARR: The real fight starts now, says Jeremy Corbyn, as the Brexit gun is cocked. So exactly what fight? When? Where? And over exactly what? The Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer is here with all the answers I’m sure…

KEIR STARMER: Well, what I’m setting out tomorrow are six tests for the final deal for Brexit. So far all the attention’s been on should the Prime Minister have permission to start negotiations. We’re through that part.

Now what comes into focus is what is the right deal, because this is about our future relationship with the EU. So I’m setting out six tests for the government. We then start a two year process, probably more than a two year process and it’s for the government to negotiate and come back with a deal that’s right for our country.

ANDREW MARR: And luckily and happily for us both I have your six tests here. I won’t go through all of them. You say you want a strong collaborative future relationship with the EU. I would suggest that everybody wants that.

KEIR STARMER: Well you say that but I think some of the pure Brexiteers actually want us to crash out either at the Article 50 stage in two years or before that, so I accept that the majority of people want a collaborative strong relationship but it is important to say that because not everybody’s in that place.

ANDREW MARR: You’ll have seen the word of Michel Barnier and others this week about what might happen if we don’t have a deal. In your view how damaging would it be not to have a deal?

KEIR STARMER: Oh very damaging. Very damaging economically, that’s what the CBI, what the Mayor of London and many others have said in pure economic terms.

But there’s also Britain’s place in Europe and in the world. If we crash out without a deal with no meaningful relationship with our EU partners. Now I accept we won’t be members but we must be partners and this has to be fought for over the next two years.

ANDREW MARR: Okay, let’s come onto the second bit which is slightly crunchier. You say we want the exact benefits, your words, from the single market and the customs union.

Can I put to you that that is just not going to happen. We’re outside both of those things, Michel Barnier and others have made it absolutely plain that we cannot get all the same benefits as if we were inside and therefore that is a hopeless thing to ask for.

KEIR STARMER: Well we’re not inside, I accept that. I do not accept that we can’t have the same benefits.

ANDREW MARR: The exact same benefits?

KEIR STARMER: Now those words, ‘exact same benefits’ are not my words.

ANDREW MARR: They’re in your six list.

KEIR STARMER: They’re in my test but they’re taken from David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

When he was pressed on this in parliament he said that he would deliver a comprehensive free trade agreement and a customs arrangement that delivered the exact same benefits as the single market and the customs union.

So we’re holding him to that test. The government can’t turn round now and say this is unachievable because it was David Davis who the Prime Minister has appointed in the role of the exiting the EU who set that as (his achievement).

ANDREW MARR: Now we come onto the next very interesting bit which is that Mr Barnier, Mr Juncker this week and many others have said that it may be achievable but there is a real price to pay. It’s about £50 billion. Is that a price worth paying so far as the Labour Party is concerned?

KEIR STARMER:Well so far as the money is concerned I wouldn’t get into a debate about the precise figure, but I would say this.

I think it’s very important early on that the principles of liability established, what is the money for, what are the principles that are to be applied to it and then I think the Prime Minister should say loud and clear, we are a country that complies with our international obligations and when a figure is arrived at, that is a figure that the UK as an international country would pay.

ANDREW MARR: You accept that we would have to pay a fairly hefty bill. Let’s not talk about numbers, but a fairly hefty bill in return for getting free access to the single market?

KEIR STARMER: Well as I say there will be principles, there will be a bill and I think we should say loud and clear we’re a country that honours our obligation.

Now how much and over what period is to be negotiated. I am very strongly of the view that there ought to be transitional arrangements from March 2019 until we reach and conclude these strong collaborative relationships that we need. So that could be paid over a longer period if we get the right relationship.

ANDREW MARR: Now among the others on the list – I won’t go through all the tests but you talk about ‘the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities’ which if I may say so is a fairly bland thing to say. Can I ask you to explain to us in a single sentence what Labour’s immigration policy now is.

KEIR STARMER: Well, we are clear that immigration was part of the debate in the referendum and therefore there’s got to be to change to the freedom of movement rules. So that goes.

ANDREW MARR: So freedom of movement goes?

KEIR STARMER: That has to go and when we exit the EU therefore there won’t be that rule.

ANDREW MARR: Your Leader suggests that might not be the case. It might go or it might not, he said.

KEIR STARMER: Well it’s an EU rule. It will have to go and therefore there’s a blank piece of paper and what I’m saying is the test tomorrow –

ANDREW MARR: So he was wrong about that.

KEIR STARMER:- is that we must have managed migration. I think the two most important things are firstly what’s going to work for the economy and then secondly what’s right for our communities.

ANDREW MARR: And do you see EU migration falling dramatically or substantially as a result of us leaving the EU?

KEIR STARMER: I think it might fall but I’ve talked to hundreds of businesses across the UK in the last three or four months. Literally hundreds of businesses. They’re very anxious and very concerned that there should be the right rules in place to enable them to continue with their businesses and I think everybody is in that place.

ANDREW MARR: You rule out freedom of movement staying?

KEIR STARMER: Well freedom of movement is an EU rule and therefore that will go. There will be a blank piece of paper and we then start with the principles that we need to apply to a future looking immigration policy.

ANDREW MARR: See your Leader said, and I quote: ‘We do not rule it out.’

KEIR STARMER:Well I think that was in a sentence where he said ‘I’m not committed to it neither do I rule it out.’ But the reality is –

ANDREW MARR: A slightly confusing sentence.

KEIR STARMER:- this is an EU rule and it will go once we depart. And that actually gives an opportunity in the Labour Party and elsewhere to say what does a principle based immigration policy look like that works for our communities and works for businesses.

ANDREW MARR: Let’s come to the really crunch questions. There are your principles. If you don’t get them what do you do?

KEIR STARMER: Well, I’ll say this first. I hope that the Prime Minister gets the right deal for our country because this is not about party politics, but about the future of our country.

• Full transcript of interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26031702.pdf

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

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

 

The post Tories and Labour promise Brexit cake appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Sixty-one years ago, on 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six European countries to form a remarkable new community.

The European Economic Community – later to be called the European Union – was started in the aftermath of the Second World War with one purpose and one purpose alone: to create lasting peace.

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.

The six founding nations of the new European Community were 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 Brexiters 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.

We are now rebuffing our allies in Europe, telling them by our actions and words that the precious, remarkable and successful post-war project to find peace and security on our continent isn’t as important to us as it is to them.

Will our friendship and relationship with the rest of our continent ever recover?

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

• Watch this 4-minute related video:

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

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.12'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

The EU was started for peace

→ Trade was the means, but peace was the goal – Please shareEUROPEAN COMMUNITY STARTED 61 YEARS AGO TODAYSixty-one years ago today, on 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six European countries to form a remarkable new community. The European Economic Community – later to be called the European Union – was started in the aftermath of the Second World War with one purpose and one purpose alone: to create lasting peace.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. The six founding nations of the new European Community were 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 Brexiters 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.We are now rebuffing our allies in Europe, telling them by our actions and words that the precious, remarkable and successful post-war project to find peace and security on our continent isn't as important to us as it is to them. Will our friendship and relationship with the rest of our continent ever recover?• Words and video by Jon Danzig• Please re-Tweet: twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/977836183941238784• This video is now on YouTube. Please share: youtu.be/jts-82rsU7I********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's video on YouTube: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com► Read Jon Danzig's article: 'Why Brexit is madness' jondanzig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/why-brexit-is-madness.html********************************************• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Instructions to ensure you get notifications of all our stories:1. Click on the ‘Following’ button under the Reasons2Remain banner2. Change the ‘Default’ setting by clicking ‘See first’.********************************************• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/********************************************• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/********************************************• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk********************************************• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help, please send us a private message.********************************************• © Reasons2Remain 2018. All our articles and graphics are the copyright of Reasons2Remain. We only allow sharing using the Facebook share button. Any other use requires our advance permission in writing.#STOPBREXIT #EXITBREXIT

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Sunday, 25 March 2018

The post The EU was started to create peace appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has fired shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith MP, after he called for a another referendum on the final Brexit deal.

The sacking came after Owen Smith wrote an article for The Guardian, urging his party to seriously consider whether Brexit was the right thing for Britain, and proposing that another vote on the issue was required.

The sacking is causing tensions in the Parliamentary Labour party over Brexit. HuffPost claimed that Labour was now ‘at war’.

Labour former Cabinet minister Lord Hain accused Corbyn of a “terrible Stalinist purge” for sacking Smith.

Ex-Labour Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw added: “Why is Owen SmithMP being sacked for representing views of UKLabour members & voters on Tory #BrexitShambles when John, Emily & Shami publicly contradicted Jeremy on #Salisburyattack & are still in their jobs?”

Labour MP Anna Turley said Smith’s sacking was “disappointing” and he would be a loss to the front bench.

According to polling earlier this year by the Mile End Institute, almost 80% of Labour party members now want a second referendum on the Brexit deal.

Furthermore, the survey revealed that 87% of Labour Party members want the UK to stay in the EU Single Market.

It seems that Owen Smith’s comments today are more in line with Labour’s members, supporters and voters than Jeremy Corbyn.

This is the article that Owen Smith wrote for The Guardian today that resulted in his sacking:
___________________________________________________

THERESA MAY HAS GOT HER TRANSITION AGREEMENT. To get there she has had to surrender on just about every one of the issues she and her ministers once told us were key sticking points.

The UK will be paying billions over to the EU despite having no say in its decisions, free movement will continue, the European court of justice will be able to issue instructions to British courts for at least another decade, the common fisheries policy will still apply to Britain – the list goes on.

The one thing that the transition agreement has come nowhere near resolving is the biggest issue of all: the network of future relationships across these islands.

By keeping the UK in the customs union and single market for another 20 months, the transition agreement puts back the need to answer the big questions about the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, but it does not remove it.

The damage a disorderly and ill-thought-out Brexit could do in Ireland is enormous. We are often told Brexit threatens to “reimpose” a so-called hard border on the island of Ireland, but that understates the problem. Because the economic border that a hard Brexit would impose on Ireland would be the hardest ever.

Not only would Northern Ireland and the Republic have different currencies but different regulatory regimes and customs barriers as well.

But this is Ireland, and while the economy is one thing, the symbolism is another. The openness of the Irish border is a hugely important sign of the continuing successes – despite all the problems – of the peace process cemented into the Good Friday agreement.

More than that, it demonstrates, every day, that different identities, histories and jurisdictions can coexist on the island without threatening each side’s integrity or legitimacy.

Given the immense suffering, in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland and the Republic, during the Troubles, we mess with these symbols at our peril.

The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland says a hard border would put his officers’ lives at risk and it seems like madness that we would even contemplate doing that.

More than that, when the British and Irish governments signed the Good Friday agreement we were entering into a contract with the people of Ireland, north and south. It is disgraceful that we think we can break that without their consent.

If we insist on leaving the EU then there is realistically only one way to honour our obligations under the Good Friday agreement and that is to remain members of both the customs union and the single market.

I’m pleased my party has taken a big step in this direction by backing continued customs union membership, but we need to go further.

Labour needs to do more than just back a soft Brexit or guarantee a soft border in Ireland. Given that it is increasingly obvious that the promises the Brexiters made to the voters – especially, but not only, their pledge of an additional £350m a week for the NHS – are never going to be honoured, we have the right to keep asking if Brexit remains the right choice for the country.

And to ask, too, that the country has a vote on whether to accept the terms, and true costs of that choice, once they are clear. That is how Labour can properly serve our democracy and the interests of our people.
___________________________________________________

In response to the sacking, Owen Smith tweeted:

‘Just been sacked by @jeremycorbyn for my long held views on the damage #Brexit will do to the Good Friday Agreement & the economy of the entire U.K. Those views are shared by Labour members & supporters and I will continue to speak up for them, and in the interest of our country.’

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

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

The post Labour is out of touch with its supporters appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

If the EU referendum had been run with the same rules as Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, the Leave vote would still have won – but Brexit would not now be happening.

That’s because in Scotland’s first referendum on devolution in 1979, our Parliament passed an amendment to the Scotland Act 1978, which set a minimum threshold before such a significant change could take place.

The amendment stipulated that a minimum of 40% of the total electorate in Scotland would need to vote for the country to have its own assembly before it could happen.

As it turned out, 52% of those who voted ticked ‘Yes’ for power to be devolved to Scotland, with 48% ticking ‘No’ – ironically, exactly the same percentages as our UK-wide EU referendum of 2016, which was 52%-48% in favour of Britain leaving the EU.

But here’s the difference.

Since the percentage of those voting ‘Yes’ for devolution was only 33% of registered voters, Scotland on that occasion didn’t get its own assembly, because Parliament had set a threshold of at least 40% of the electorate voting ‘Yes’ before it could happen.

The then Labour government accepted that the Act’s requirements had not been met in the referendum, and that devolution would therefore not be introduced for Scotland.

Setting a minimum threshold for constitutional change is normal practice among democracies across the world that use referendums. For example, a threshold of higher than 50% of the total electorate, or a two-thirds majority of those voting, before a country’s constitution can be changed.

This makes sense, since if the majority of a country’s electorate doesn’t positively agree to change – whether they vote or not – it means that a minority is making the decision without the express wishes of the majority.

Well, that’s precisely what happened in the EU referendum.

Unfortunately, Parliament on that occasion didn’t set a threshold requiring 40% of the total electorate to vote for ‘Leave’ before it could happen.

That’s no doubt because, unlike the Scottish referendum in 1979, the EU referendum of 2016 was advisory only. However, since only a minority of the electorate voted for Leave, it would have been plausible for Parliament to say that an insufficient percentage of voters had voted for Leave.

In the EU referendum, only 37% of the total electorate voted for Leave.

If Parliament had set a minimum threshold of at least 40%, as it did for Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, it would mean that Brexit wouldn’t now be going ahead.

If such a threshold had been in place, it would have avoided the constitutional crisis that has now engulfed the United Kingdom, involving a minority of the electorate permanently changing the country, without the express consent of the majority.

Some readers (Brexiters) may ask what does it matter? The referendum has happened, according to the rules agreed by Parliament, and we can’t turn back the clock.

That, of course, is true.

However, there were so many flaws in the EU referendum that I believe it’s necessary to expose the plebiscite for what it was: a sham involving a democratic deficit on a grand and shocking scale.

If we dismantle the referendum, brick by brick, we can see that the country is being changed without a bona fide mandate to do so.

Consider just some of the key shortfalls and defects in the referendum:

• It’s just been announced that Cambridge Analytica, the company at the heart of the Facebook scandal, boasted of having “vast amounts of data” that could sway the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union. A 10-page document written by Cambridge Analytica, headed “Big Data Solutions for the EU Referendum”, claimed it could single out Brexiters among voters, donors, politicians and even journalists.

MPs have called for a wider investigation into the firm, which has been accused of obtaining 50 million people’s private details harvested from Facebook, amid questions over the role it may have played in the referendum.

• During the referendum campaign, the country was lied to by the Leave campaign on a scale never seen before in a modern UK poll. Millions of voters opted for Leave on the basis of promises about Brexit that can never be fulfilled, and misleading information about the EU that was demonstrably wrong. Without such dishonesty, it’s almost certain that Leave could not have won.

• Nobody during the referendum campaign knew what the Leave vote meant. We knew what Remain meant, as we’d had it for over 40 years. But there was no clear vision or manifesto or plan for leaving the EU that the voters could consider, let alone understand. We still don’t know what Leave means.

• In 2015 the Conservatives made a manifesto pledge to scrap the rule preventing Britons from voting who had lived abroad for more than 15 years. However, the Conservative government stated that it could not implement this promise in time for the referendum.

In addition, many British voters abroad who were eligible to vote, complained that they had not received their postal ballots in time to cast their votes. Without this debacle, it’s quite likely that Leave would not have won the referendum.

• Citizens from over 70 countries (mostly Britain’s former colonies) with ‘leave to remain’ in the UK were allowed to vote in the EU referendum, but most citizens from the rest of the EU living and working in the UK were denied a vote, even though the referendum result directly affected them.

This represented a serious democratic deficit. (After all, citizens from the EU living in Scotland were allowed to vote in Scotland’s referendum on independence).

• The House of Lords put forward an amendment that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote in the EU referendum, in the same way that they were allowed to vote in Scotland’s referendum on independence.

But the Commons rejected this amendment, “Because it would involve a charge on public funds”. So younger people, who will have to live with the referendum decision for the longest, were denied a vote simply on the grounds of cost. (The cost of Brexit will be much higher).

• As previously discussed, only 37% of the total electorate voted for Leave, meaning that a minority of registered voters are to permanently change the country’s direction, without the express consent of the majority.

• Older voters are responsible for Leave winning, in particular the over 70s, who swung the vote for Brexit with their 1.28 million Leave votes. In contrast, younger people voted predominantly for Remain, by 75% to 25%.

As older Leave voters die, and younger Remain supporting youngsters come of age, it means that if the Referendum had been held just a bit later, Remain would have won.

(This simply shows how tenuous was the Leave vote – it wasn’t a landslide, in just very slightly different circumstances, Brexit would not now be happening.)

• The referendum, by act of Parliament, was not legally binding, but simply an advisory exercise. The Supreme Court ruled that only an act of Parliament could result in Britain leaving the EU. But no such act has been passed by Parliament.

The government wrongly advised Parliament that the decision to leave the EU had been made in the referendum, and that Parliament only needed to vote to give the Prime Minister permission to give notice to the EU that the UK was leaving.

However, many leading lawyers are now saying this was incorrect. The referendum, being advisory, could not give an instruction on leaving the EU. Consequently, it’s claimed that Theresa May’s letter to the EU under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was invalid. This is currently the subject of a legal challenge.

These are just some of the key reasons why the EU referendum was flawed, leading to the biggest constitutional crisis for Britain in modern times.

The EU referendum, like all referendums, was nothing more than a lottery. And unfortunately, this time, we are all the losers.

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook

The post Why the EU referendum was flawed appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

So, for all the worrying, it looks like tomorrow’s Art.50 European Council will be a procession. The draft Withdrawal Agreement is 75% green, transition agreements are all in place and the events in Salisbury have reminded everyone that there are good external reasons to get on with each other.

Of course, it’s not nearly that simple.

The Irish dimension remains no nearer to securing a non-Option C outcome and there are important gaps on dispute resolution. But for boosters, there’s a lot to be happy about.

And one marker of that, and of the more general buy-in to the agreement, is the proliferation of fig-leaves.

By that I mean symbolic elements that do not challenge the basic outlines of the deal, but suggest steely resolve and not letting ‘them’ get the better of ‘us’.

To be clear, these are not un-important elements, especially for those directly involved, but in the wider scheme of things they are largely marginal.

I’ll hesitate to call the ‘new passports to be made in the Netherlands‘ story such a fig-leaf, although it is a classic bit of misdirection (and an education on what free trade actually involves).

However, the furore over fishing in the UK is a fig-leaf: with several MPs threatening to vote down the Article 50 deal if the Common Fisheries Policy continues through to the end of transition, and more stunts on the Thames yesterday, it is clear there is much heat around this issue.

However, heat is not light, and it not clear that those MPs can secure Labour support, especially when the government has said that rejecting the deal means leaving without one at all: the former get to stand up for their constituents, while the government gets to keep its deal with the EU27.

Even if there were to be a concession on CFP, it would be a very small economic effect and one likely to flounder (sorry) on the lack of alternative fisheries management arrangements that could come into effect in March 2019.

It is tempting to see the Gibraltar issue in a similar light on the EU’s side. Spain has been reported to be blocking agreement tomorrow until the status of the territory is addressed. However, the mood in Brussels seems to be that this can be pushed into bilateral discussions between London and Madrid and needn’t jeopardise the rest of the progress.

Important as Gibraltar is as a symbol of Spanish politics – especially in a period of territorial uncertainty – it is also an important part of the southern Spanish regional economy, so the extent to which the country will want to endanger that – and be seen as responsible for the compromising of relations with the UK – must be under question.

In sum, the momentum that has built up in Article 50 is now quite considerable and is making it harder for any one to step away from it all. While the calls heard this week for a final text by June look hubristic, it is evident that much ground has been covered and that people will be working hard to cover the rest.

Which brings once again to the elephant in the room.

The Irish dimension is now approaching a difficult phase. Option C is drawn up and agreed in principle as a backstop, but the UK has said it really doesn’t want it. The question now is whether Options A or B can also be developed enough to replace C. Certainly that’s part of the logic in pushing the framework for the future relationship as far and as fast as possible and for the efforts being made to develop technological solutions for specific border issues.

But time is running low and the game of chicken hasn’t got much road left. The talk that the UK might be given only until June to work out alternatives before Option C gets locked in is not definitive, but if the European Council does approve that, then more difficulties will ensue.

A possible option is agreeing that work will continue through past March 2019 and into transition, as part of the future relationship talks: things would be fine in the interim, as transition extends everything, and it would mean more time to ‘do it right’. The fear – especially in Dublin – is that such kicking into the long grass might mean a loss of concentrated minds and support for following through.

If Ireland is never going to become a fig-leaf, because of its scale and its knock-on effects, then we should also keep in mind that Article 50 is – more generally speaking – still not a done deal.

Fig-leaves there may be, but recent history tells us to be cautious about making assumptions: political calculations can change and individuals can have very different perceptions of costs and benefits to the rest of us.

A final salutary thought then: when Article 50 has previously made progress, that has been followed by new impasses. Don’t be surprised to see the same once again.

The post Spring: the season of fig-leaves appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Sometimes someone says something that will be remembered forever and quoted in history books as the phrase that summed it all up.

That moment came today when Britain’s former international trade chief compared Brexit to giving up a three-course meal for a packet of crisps.

Sir Martin Donnelly, until last year the top civil servant in Liam Fox’s Department of International Trade, warned that Britain faced a direct threat to its status as a leading service economy if it did not agree to close alignment with EU Single Market rules.

Sir Martin told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the UK risked being shut out entirely from its biggest market.

“You’re giving up a three-course meal, the depth and intensity of our trade relationship across the European Union and partners now, for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future, if we manage to do trade deals in the future outside the EU which aren’t going to compensate for what we’re giving up,” he said.

The arithmetic just doesn’t add up, he said.

He added that the EU was “the only functioning market for services in the world” and key to Britain’s prosperity as an advanced service economy.

“We risk losing that level playing field or being shut out entirely and we have got to look at how this really works in practice,” he said.

“The challenge if we choose not to stay in the single market, is can we negotiate equal access in all those areas of services without agreeing to obey the same rules as everybody else?

“I’m afraid I think that’s not a negotiation, that is something for a fairy godmother. It’s not going to happen.”

Sir Martin, a former Treasury adviser, said his advice could not be written off as pessimism from a Europhile mandarin, as ministers have attempted to do in the past.

“We really have to focus on the realities of Brexit and the choices we’ve got ahead of us. If we leave the customs union and the single market, we are taking away the access that we’ve got to 60% of our trade, nearly half with the EU and the other 12% through EU preferential trade deals.”

In a speech scheduled for tonight, and which is bound to overshadow Liam Fox’s earlier speech of today, Sir Martin will say:

“Given the negative consequences of leaving, and the lack of any significant offsetting advantages, I believe it is likely the UK will seek to return to full membership of the EU single market in due course.

“But significant damage to employment, the structure of the economy and the competitiveness of UK firms can be expected in the meantime.”

On the Today programme, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson responded that he strongly dissented with the comments of “my old friend, Sir Martin Donnelly… with some talk of packets of crisps and three-course meals.”

Mr Johnson commented, “If you look at the real growth opportunities in this country they are not in the European Union. Growth markets in the world are outside the EU and we should go for growth.”

He added, “I’ve known Martin for many years and he’s a very, very good man..

“He’s an excellent man but I don’t agree for a moment with what he says. Actually our trade with the EU has been declining rapidly over the last ten years as a share of our total trade. It’s gone from about 55% to well under about 44% in ten years.

“If you look at where the growth is since 2010 the growth rate in our exports to the EU has been about 10% and growth to America is 40%, growth with Saudi Arabia 40%, growth with Japan 60%, growth with Korea up 100%.”

But Boris Johnson was attempting to bamboozle his audience with numbers, as the growth rates he quoted hide the reality.

In 2016, UK exports to the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £318 billion (54% of all UK imports).

There may be bigger growth of trade with other countries, but nothing comes anywhere near to the value of our trade with the EU.

Whereas 43% of our exports go to the EU, only 19% goes to the USA (our second largest export market next to the EU). There is no way that our sales to the USA could reach anywhere close to 43%.

Mr Johnson referred to the UK’s growing export market to Saudi Arabia – but most of that growth relates to the sale of weapons of war.

Saudi Arabia is the UK’s largest weapons client and has bought more than £3bn of British arms in the past two years.

Last year campaigners lost a high-profile court case calling for UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia to be stopped over humanitarian concerns.

The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) tried to stop the UK government from granting weapons-export licences to Saudi Arabia because of widespread concerns over the civilian death toll of its two-year bombing campaign in Yemen.

Frankly, it’s quite appalling that the Foreign Secretary has heralded Britain’s growing exports of weapons to Saudi Arabia as anything to be proud about.

UK’s exports to Japan in 2016 were worth £11.6bn, a 10% increase from the year before. But that’s additional trade with Japan that the UK has achieved whilst an EU member; it does not have to be either/or, it can be both.

Mr Johnson also referred to 100% growth in the UK’s exports with South Korea, which indeed did grow from just over £3bn in 2010 to just over £6bn in 2016.

But how can £6 billion of our exports to South Korea compare to our £236 billion of exports to the EU?

And what Mr Johnson failed to mention is that our exports to South Korea only shot up after the EU had sealed a trade agreement with that country, which has been in effect since 2011.

From March next year, Britain will no longer benefit from that EU trade agreement with South Korea, along with EU trade deals with almost 60 other countries across the world.

Once outside the EU and its Single Market or Customs Union, the UK will have to negotiate all those trade agreements again from scratch.

Trade experts say that will take many, many years to achieve, and it’s unlikely that Britain’s new trade agreements with those countries will be anywhere near as good, let alone better, than the agreements we already have now through the EU.

What Mr Johnson also failed to point out is that the EU does not stop us trading with countries across the world.

In the EU, we have the best of both worlds: trade with our closest and most important international export and import market, and trade with countries across the world.

Mr Johnson and Tory Brexit ministers have referred to EU trade agreements as something that are imposed on us.

But as an EU member, the UK fully participates in the negotiating and agreeing of EU trade deals. And as the EU is the world’s biggest exporter and importer, it can negotiate the best deals.

The way Boris Johnson talks, it seems he thinks he is very clever and his audiences are very stupid. But it’s becoming clearer by the day that it’s completely the other way round.

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

• Join and follow the discussion about this article and video on Facebook:

The post Brexit: Dinner or a packet of crisps? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

At the moment there is a cherry picking debate going on in British politics, about which parts of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU should be kept after Brexit. Theresa May is hoping for a transition period of around two years for the UK to remain in the EU’s customs union and single market after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, while some Brexiteer Tories in her cabinet want the UK to be completely outside of the EU before then.

On the other hand Jeremy Corbyn would like the UK to remain in the EU’s customs union to ensure free trade with Europe, which would benefit British industry after the UK has left the EU. One of Jeremy Corbyn’s colleagues in the Labour Party, Barry Gardiner, who is Shadow International Trade Secretary was quoted in The Independent as saying, “Labour cannot support single market membership because it would dishonour Brexit vote”.

Even if the UK remained in the EU’s customs union and single market, the British people would no longer be able to send elected representatives to the European Parliament, unless the UK retained its full membership of the EU. The loss of access to the European Parliament for British people would be worse than the loss of a trading relationship with Europe, because sending elected MEPs to the European Parliament represents a cultural and political link with Europe as a whole, as well as giving UK representatives a say in Europe’s economic policies.

If a MEP representing a UK constituency is doing his or her job properly, then that representative should be helping constituents in the UK to connect with those living in other EU member states, in order to support the common interests of EU citizens, which will shape the direction of Europe in the future. This could be done by creating better transport links across the English Channel and North Sea, and for the UK to join the Schengen area. This would help to remind the British that they are also both Europeans and EU citizens. But first of all Brexit must be cancelled.

©Jolyon Gumbrell 2018

Sources

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-brexit-speech-live-updates-labour-eu-customs-union-party-policy-theresa-may-a8228496.html

©Jolyon Gumbrell 2018

The post Worse than the loss of trade appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The Good Friday Agreement was a landmark achievement that completely opened all the borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This remarkable initiative brought peace at last at the turn of the millennium.

That peace is now threatened by Brexit.

The Tory government is hellbent on a hard Brexit, meaning the UK will leave the EU and its Single Market and customs union.

If that happens, it will be impossible to avoid the return of hard borders on the island of Ireland.

And that will mean undoing years of delicate and intricate work to create the Good Friday Agreement, that ended decades of terrible and intransigent sectarian violence.

There is talk of vague technological solutions to create semi-transparent borders, but nobody has been able to explain exactly how they would work, and nobody with any sense or understanding of the situation has any belief that such fanciful ideas could ever work, let alone be accepted or acceptable.

So hellbent (yes, the word has been used twice on purpose) are some Brexit politicians in their ideological desperation for Brexit, that they have now proposed scrapping the Good Friday agreement, as it is getting in their way.

They can have no idea of the Pandora’s box they are willing to prise open to the detriment of everyone.

Labour is about to announce that it will support staying in the EU customs union, which would allow the open borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland to remain. This weekend an alliance of over 80 senior figures in the Labour Party also called on the party to go one step further, and to support the UK staying in the EU Single Market too.

This is called a ‘soft Brexit’. But a soft Brexit means that we would be, like Norway, a member of the European Union in all but name: yes, enjoying the benefits of membership, but not having any say or vote in the rules, regulations and laws of the EU that we would have to follow.

Absolutely none of this makes sense.

The only rational resolution is for Britain to scrap Brexit and to remain a full member of the European Union. There is no agreement that will be as good as the one we have now, as an EU member.

And the sooner the country realises that, the sooner we can get back to where we were before this madness all started on 23 June 2016.

________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________

• Join and follow the discussion about this article and video on Facebook:

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.12'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Hard Brexit = Hard border

→ Brexit threatens peace – Please shareHARD BREXIT = HARD BORDERThe Good Friday Agreement was a landmark achievement that completely opened all the borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This remarkable initiative brought peace at last at the turn of the millennium. That peace is now threatened by Brexit.The Tory government is hellbent on a hard Brexit, meaning the UK will leave the EU and its Single Market and customs union.If that happens, it will be impossible to avoid the return of hard borders on the island of Ireland. And that will mean undoing years of delicate and intricate work to create the Good Friday Agreement, that ended decades of terrible and intransigent sectarian violence. There is talk of vague technological solutions to create semi-transparent borders, but nobody has been able to explain exactly how they would work, and nobody with any sense or understanding of the situation has any belief that such fanciful ideas could ever work, let alone be accepted or acceptable.So hellbent (yes, the word has been used twice on purpose) are some Brexit politicians in their ideological desperation for Brexit, that they have now proposed scrapping the Good Friday agreement, as it is getting in their way. They can have no idea of the Pandora’s box they are willing to prise open to the detriment of everyone.Labour is about to announce that it will support staying in the EU customs union, which would allow the open borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland to remain. This weekend an alliance of over 80 senior figures in the Labour Party also called on the party to go one step further, and to support the UK staying in the EU Single Market too.This is called a ‘soft Brexit’. But a soft Brexit means that we would be, like Norway, a member of the European Union in all but name: yes, enjoying the benefits of membership, but not having any say or vote in the rules, regulations and laws of the EU that we would have to follow.Absolutely none of this makes sense. The only rational resolution is for Britain to scrap Brexit and to remain a full member of the European Union. There is no agreement that will be as good as the one we have now, as an EU member. And the sooner the country realises that, the sooner we can get back to where we were before this madness all started on 23 June 2016.• Words by Jon Danzig. Video by the European Parliament (reproduced with kind permission).• This video is now on YouTube. Please share: youtu.be/ejnljAIbuv8• Please re-Tweet: twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/967873784714809344********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's video on YouTube: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com► Read Jon Danzig's article: 'Why Brexit is madness' jondanzig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/why-brexit-is-madness.html********************************************• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Instructions to ensure you get notifications of all our stories:1. Click on the ‘Following’ button under the Reasons2Remain banner2. Change the ‘Default’ setting by clicking ‘See first’.********************************************• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/********************************************• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/********************************************• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk********************************************• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help, please send us a private message.********************************************• © Reasons2Remain 2018. All our articles and graphics are the copyright of Reasons2Remain. We only allow sharing using the Facebook share button. Any other use requires our advance permission in writing.#STOPBREXIT #EXITBREXIT

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Sunday, 25 February 2018

The post Hard Brexit = Hard border on Ireland appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

EU negotiators beware. At least some of those on the other side of the table from you don’t just want Britain to leave the EU. They want to see the end of the EU altogether.

That’s been the aim of prominent Brexit campaigners from the start. And it’s certainly the aim of the guy who started Brexit: UKIP MEP and their former leader, Nigel Farage.

Last September, Mr Farage received a standing ovation at a far-right rally in Berlin when he addressed Germany’s anti-EU party, Alternative for Germany (AfD).

Mr Farage was applauded after urging the AfD to fight for German independence from the EU.

This is nothing new. On the morning of the referendum, with his and his party’s dreams realised, Mr Farage made clear that there was unfinished business with the EU.

“I hope this victory brings down this failed project … let’s get rid of the flag, the anthem, Brussels, and all that has gone wrong,” he said in his 4am victory speech.

On Talk Radio in Spain four years ago, Mr Farage said that he not only wanted Britain to leave the European Union, he also wanted to see “Europe out of the European Union” – in other words, the complete disintegration of the European Single Market.

Some ardent Tory Brexiters also share UKIP’s goal to see the end of the European Union altogether.

Conservative Steve Baker MP, Wycombe, one of Britain’s Brexit negotiators, said in 2010 that he wanted to see the European Union “wholly torn down.”

In a speech to a right-wing think tank he branded the EU as an “obstacle” to world peace and “incompatible” with a free society.

In his 2010 speech Mr Baker also told the cheering audience: “I think UKIP and the ‘Better Off Out’ campaign lack ambition. I think the European Union needs to be wholly torn down.”

In a keynote speech for Vote Leave during the referendum campaign, Michael Gove, MP, then Justice Secretary and now Secretary of State for the Environment, made similar comments about bringing down the EU.

Mr Gove said:

“Britain voting to leave will be the beginning of something potentially even more exciting – the democratic liberation of a whole continent.”

He described Britain’s departure from the EU as “a contagion” that could spread across Europe.

Reporting on Mr Gove’s speech, the BBC stated: “Leaving the EU could also encourage others to follow suit, said Mr Gove.”

Commenting after the speech, a senior aide for the Leave campaign indicated to HeraldScotland that Mr Gove would be, “happy if Britain’s in-out referendum sparked similar polls across Europe.”

The Herald Scotland reporter asked if Brexit would lead to the break-up of the EU as we knew it and the aide replied, “Yes.”

When asked if the Out campaign hoped that it would trigger “the end of the Brussels block” the aide replied, “Certainly.”

In his speech, Mr Gove suggested that far from being the exception if Britain left the EU, it would become the norm as most other EU member states would choose to govern themselves. It was membership of the EU that was the anomaly, argued Mr Gove.

The Guardian headline was:

‘Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove’

The Telegraph headline:

‘Michael Gove urges EU referendum voters to trigger ‘the democratic liberation of a whole continent’

The Express headline:

‘BREXIT WILL BREAK-UP EU: Leave vote to spark domino effect across bloc, says Gove’

The Bloomberg headline:

‘U.K. Brexit Vote Would Be End of EU as We Know It, Gove Says’

The Irish Times headline:

‘Michael Gove says other EU states may leave EU’

Britain’s EU referendum was not just about whether Britain should remain in the European Union. For some leading Brexit campaigners, it was a referendum about whether the European Union itself should continue to exist.

Leading Brexit supporters hope that what happened in Britain on 23 June 2016 could result in the end of the EU. This is no doubt a wake-up call for pro-EU supporters across the continent.

Britain chose not to be one of the founding members of the Union back in 1957 but joined later, in 1973.

Now Britain is destined to be the only member ever to leave the Union, with the open aspiration of at least some ‘Leave’ campaigners that other EU members will also follow Britain in exiting the EU.

EU leaders are no doubt aware, and alarmed, that the downfall of the EU is the aim of at least two of Theresa May’s ministers.

For all of us who cherish the European Union as one of the most successful post-war projects, this is no longer just a battle about Brexit.

This is a campaign to ensure that Brexit politicians don’t succeed in inflicting grievous damage to the EU, with their stated aim to destroy the European Union entirely.

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

 

The post The end of the EU is their aim appeared first on Ideas on Europe.