European Union

The European Commission has upped the pressure on the conservative nationalist government in Budapest over its asylum policy. The Commission is suing Hungary at the European Court of Justice as a final step in its ongoing breach of contract proceedings. In addition it is launching a lawsuit over new legislation against people who help refugees known as the "Stop Soros package". What does the press have to say?

Jews in Lower Austria will in future only be able to buy kosher meat if they can prove their religious affiliation. Austria's animal protection laws are already very strict regarding ritual slaughter. But animal welfare is just being used as a pretext in the debate, commentators criticise.

France's National Assembly is currently debating the constitutional reform presented by President Macron. Among other things the president proposes restructuring the state institutions, reinforcing the separation of powers, increasing civil participation and simplifying the country's legislation. French commentators are dissatisfied with the plan.

This week Prime Minister, Theresa May, told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the UK could have frictionless trade with the EU, without being in the Single Market or the EU customs union.

SNP MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, told the Prime Minister that her plans were “pie in the sky”. Not only is he right, but Theresa May knows her Brexit plans are pie in the sky.

Before the referendum Mrs May said clearly and persuasively:

“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 trade agreement with the EU 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?

The EU most certainly will not accept Mrs May’s pie in the sky proposals.

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 to desperately try and get back as many of those benefits as we can after we’ve left.

We’re going to pay around £40 billion (the so-called ‘divorce settlement’) – money that will come from us, you and me – to try and achieve what we’ve got, but less of it, and on considerably inferior terms.

This is complete and utter madness. It will be much better to just keep the current arrangement. It will be cheaper, and we will all be better off.

• As an EU member:

① We have a say and votes in the running, rules and future direction of our continent. ② We have full and free access to the world’s largest free marketplace. ③ We enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent. ④ We enjoy state healthcare and education when living and working in any other EU country. ⑤ We enjoy free or low-cost health care when visiting any EU nation. ⑥ We are protected by continent-wide rights that protect us at work, when shopping and travelling. ⑦ We benefit from laws that protect our environment (and have, for example, directly resulted in Britain’s beaches being cleaned up). ⑧ 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.

So, we’re going to throw that all away, just so we can get an inferior arrangement with the EU, in which we’d still have to agree to the rules of EU trade (over which we’d have no say) and we’d have less access to our most vital customers and suppliers outside of our home market.

We are leaving for no good reason, not one. We are paying around £40 billion (money the UK has agreed we owe to the EU) to settle our debts with the EU, to enable us to have an inferior deal.

We will be poorer, and with less sovereignty, fewer rights and protections, restricted trade, and diminished power after we’ve left.

What’s the point? There’s no point.

There is no pie. There is no cake. There is no Brexit dividend. There is no Brexit that can work.

________________________________________________________

• 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:

(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=v3.0'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Pie in the sky Brexit

→ Brexit won't work. Get it? – Please sharePIE IN THE SKY BREXIT – Video and articleThis week Prime Minister, Theresa May, told the House of Commons Liaison Committee that the UK could have frictionless trade with the EU, without being in the Single Market or the EU customs union.SNP MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, told the Prime Minister that her plans were "pie in the sky". Not only is he right, but Theresa May knows her Brexit plans are pie in the sky. Before the referendum Mrs May said clearly and persuasively:“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 trade agreement with the EU 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?The EU most certainly will not accept Mrs May's pie in the sky proposals.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 to desperately try and get back as many of those benefits as we can after we’ve left.We’re going to pay around £40 billion (the so-called ‘divorce settlement’) – money that will come from us, you and me – to try and achieve what we’ve got, but less of it, and on considerably inferior terms.This is complete and utter madness. It will be much better to just keep the current arrangement. It will be cheaper, and we will all be better off.As an EU member:① We have a say and votes in the running, rules and future direction of our continent.② We have full and free access to the world’s largest free marketplace.③ We enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire across a huge expanse of our continent.④ We enjoy state healthcare and education when living and working in any other EU country.⑤ We enjoy free or low-cost health care when visiting any EU nation.⑥ We are protected by continent-wide rights that protect us at work, when shopping and travelling.⑦ We benefit from laws that protect our environment (and have, for example, directly resulted in Britain’s beaches being cleaned up).⑧ 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.So, we’re going to throw that all away, just so we can get an inferior arrangement with the EU, in which we’d still have to agree to the rules of EU trade (over which we’d have no say) and we’d have less access to our most vital customers and suppliers outside of our home market.We are leaving for no good reason, not one. We are paying around £40 billion (money the UK has agreed we owe to the EU) to settle our debts with the EU, to enable us to have an inferior deal.We will be poorer, and with less sovereignty, fewer rights and protections, restricted trade, and diminished power after we’ve left.What’s the point? There’s no point.There is no pie. There is no cake. There is no Brexit dividend. There is no Brexit that can work.• Words and video by Jon Danzig• Please re-Tweet, and follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter.twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/1020200409347100672********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's 50-minute video: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com********************************************• 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 #PEOPLESVOTE

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Thursday, 19 July 2018

The post Pie in the sky Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b24deb08-8b23-11e8-a267-bc764e093073_159.44_thumb_169_1531984979_1531984976_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Employment and Social policy and Health meet for an Informal session on 19 and 20 July 2018 in Vienna.

Download this video here.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/90d0a49a-1499-11e7-bfe6-bc764e093073_45.23_thumb_169_1529941418_1529941418_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs of the EU27 meet on 20 July 2018 in Brussels to take stock of the state of play of Brexit negotiations.

Download this video here.

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Let’s suppose my university likes talking about the future. They might do fancy powerpoint presentations, with artists’ impressions of shiny buildings and other infrastructure, together with charts showing How It’s All Going To Be Great.

Looks wonderful, I might think. But how do we get there, I might also think.

And then it might turn out that between here and there is a period of optimising and belt-tightening, doing better to get more. That kind of thing.

Ah, I might think. And, indeed, oh.

And so it is with Brexit. And no ‘might’ about it, now.

The fine words split on both sides about building a constructive and meaningful relationship post-membership are legion. Last week’s White Paper was simply the latest iteration of this.

In all the argument about whether the White Paper vision can be realised in the face of determined domestic divisions, very little attention has been given to the more practical aspects of getting from here to there, practicalities that will exist whatever ‘there’ turns out to be.

Now, after some discussions with officials and other academics, I feel I understand the matter well enough to have a stab at lying it out for you.

The pitch

This all makes more sense if we work from the end backwards.

The White Paper envisages a series of legal documents, bound by a framework agreement that will encompass a wide range of policy areas. There seems to be a suggestion that this series will not be concluded simultaneously, but rather as they are ready: that makes sense, as a convoy approach might cause big delays for a relatively minor issue.

Moreover, the document also mentions an implementation period, directly in relation to auditing, and indirectly in relation to the famously-unexplainable Facilitated Customs Arrangement (FCA), which will have a phased introduction. However, there’s no more detail available about that implementation period.

Together, these things point to a situation where the end of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transition period at the end of December 2020 will not see the immediate and complete introduction and enforcement of a new end-state.

Instead, there might be some agreements in place – including, presumably, the framework text that contains the management, implementation and infringement architecture – with some of those agreements not being fully operational until a later date.

The questions

Which raises some questions.

The most obvious one is how long will this situation last? When does the end-state actually come into being?

In essence, you have one of two options on this front. Either you define the process by time or by conditions.

The time model (“we’ll have an agreement in place on this date”) is the one we’ve seen so far (on Article 50, and on transition), which offers a clear endpoint and stronger incentives to make progress, especially if interim arrangements lapse at that point.

The conditions-based model (“we’ll have an agreement in place as soon as we can satisfy our basic requirements”) is much less certain on timespan, but does ensure parties’ interests are better protected.

Either way, much would depend on the hierarchy of needs on both sides and the perceived distance of opening positions. However, such disaggregation does point to a period of years, rather than months, to get towards something approaching the end-state.

Of course, part of that will depend on the second key question: what happens in the meantime?

As matters stand, the transition ends in December 2020, and with it the entirety of the current arrangements. As I’ve discussed before, this cliff-edge is much more problematic to resolve than the March 2019 one, for both legal and political reasons.

Again, we have a limited number of options.

The first is to let the transition arrangements lapse and then build up to the end-state from scratch. Some of the EU’s current position on matters such as internal security implicitly use this view, treating the UK as a third country rather than as an ex-member state. Obviously that makes the cliff-edge at the end of 2020 very real, although it might incentivise getting more done sooner, to reduce its effect.

The second is to avoid the cliff-edge and extend the transition arrangements into the implementation period. In effect, you’d be keeping things the same until you knew what they were changing to. This is the principle behind the transition period and means only one adaptation process for operators (and citizens) to undertake.

The third would be to build some kind of new settlement for the implementation period; not nothing, but also no as close as in transition. This phased approach would allow all shapes to mark some progress and to spread the adaptation costs, but with the problem that it requires the most negotiation now to realise.

The problem

None of these options is cost-free and none is simple. And if you think they are, then remember that the Irish dimension is profoundly tied up in all of this too.

But perhaps just as importantly, none is being discussed at this stage.

I have yet to meet anyone who seriously believes that the transition period is long enough to negotiate and ratify a complete end-state agreement between the UK and EU. Likewise, I have yet to meet anyone with a detailed plan for a non-backstop resolution to Northern Ireland.

Amortising the problem across time might be one key way of managing these issues. By holding some parts steady, while focusing on others, it may be possible to break matters down into more manageable and less contentious chunks.

But that comes with challenges of its own; challenges that have barely registered so far in a political landscape that resembles – in the UK at least – nothing so much as the trenches of World War One: muddy, lethal and not getting anywhere fast.

Perhaps the key is to remember that the process will matter as much as the end-state: mutually agreeing a practical operationalisation for the strategy on getting to that deep and special relationship will make it more likely that all sides stick with the programme and get to turn those fine words into something like a reality.

The post Getting to an end-state appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Iron cat 15-19 July 2018 on the Danube

Tag: Iron Cat

DRAFT REPORT on Military Mobility
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tunne Kelam

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

In September 2017, when we took over the position of editors for the JCMS Annual Review, we came in with a vision to address the challenges facing the discipline of EU studies more broadly.

2017 was certainly an eventful year on all aspects of politics, economics and society and represented a critical moment for all of us studying the EU and its politics. This juncture is both exciting and equally daunting in EU history, not least because of the complexity of global challenges, be those addressed at the national, European or transnational levels. One of those grand challenges is precisely the outcome of the process of the departure of the UK from the European Union, following the 2016 EU Referendum.

To solve that puzzle, we invited Prof. Simon Hix (LSE) to deliver the JCMS Annual Review Lecture, addressing the state of play of the UK-EU relations post-Brexit. Prof. Hix was on board immediately and delivered a very engaging lecture at Portcullis House, in the heart of Westminster, where the majority of debates around Brexit take place. The lecture was a public event, attracting audience from all walks of life including practitioners, academics, students and engaged citizens.

In his lecture, which is published as a contribution to the JCMS Annual Review, Prof. Hix addressed the key positions of the UK and the EU in the negotiations one year into the process. Following a game theoretical process of ranking the outcomes of the type of relationship between the UK and the EU, Prof. Hix argued that the basic outcomes have been well-known in terms of a ‘soft’ or a ‘hard’ form of Brexit or a ‘no deal’ outcome. The UK has started to explore the possibilities of a ‘Canada plus plus plus’ agreement and this is certainly reflected in the way that negotiations have proceeded.

Having solved the bargaining game, Prof. Hix concludes that the likely deal between the UK and the EU27 will have the form of a a basic free trade agreement, mainly covering trade in goods with not much on trade in services. Certainly, current events at Chequers confirmed Prof. Hix’s position. In his words, “a basic free trade agreement would not be the end of the process.” The UK will have to negotiate additional agreements with the EU, occasions which are likely to be highly-salient events in domestic politics.

If the UK has to repeatedly fold in its position, then the EU will acquire an even more negative image in the UK, which will make opposition to closer cooperation much stronger. Prof. Hix concluded that in that case, the UK may be stuck with that basic free trade deal for a long time.

• Read the lecture here.
• Listen to an interview with Simon Hix about the lecture here.
• Listen to a recording of the lecture here.

Credit (all photos): Simon Usherwood

 

Dr. Theofanis Exadaktylos

Prof. Roberta Guerrina

Dr. Emanuele Massetti

Co-editors, JCMS Annual Review

University of Surrey

 

 

The post The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 – Prof. Simon Hix on the future UK-EU relationship appeared first on Ideas on Europe.