European Union

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/940d932a-7bed-11e5-80b3-bc764e083742_63.78_thumb_169_1523629642_1523629642_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Foreign and European Affairs meet on 14 May 2018 in Brussels.

Download this video here.

The Tory government is still entirely split on what type of Brexit Britain should have.

And if the government can’t now agree on what Brexit means, how on earth could the electorate have known what Brexit meant on 23 June 2016?

This weekend the Tory-supporting Telegraph reported that:

‘At least a dozen members of Theresa May’s Cabinet are lining up to block her plans for a new “customs partnership” with the European Union.’

The Telegraph added that it had established that:

‘12 out of a total of 28 individuals who sit in Cabinet alongside Mrs May oppose her favoured plans for Britain’s post-Brexit customs relationship with the EU.’

But government sources, reported The Telegraph, believe that as many as 15 cabinet ministers now oppose Mrs May’s Brexit plans.

• On the one hand, Mrs May supports a “customs partnership” whereby the UK would collect tariffs on behalf of the EU – but without the need for new border checks.
• But hardline Brexiters prefer a different system called “maximum facilitation” – or ‘max fac’ – based on using technology to minimise the need for customs checks after Brexit.

Sixty Tory MPs from the pro-Leave European Research Group (ERG) have written to Mrs May warning that her proposal for a “customs partnership” is unworkable and could cause the “collapse” of the Government.

However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has called both options “unworkable”.

Commented Luke Lythgoe on InFacts this weekend,

‘This rather predictable mess wasn’t mentioned, let alone interrogated, during the referendum campaign.

‘If the public don’t like the interminable mess the government has gotten itself into, they should demand a people’s vote on whatever Brexit deal our dithering prime minister eventually manages to produce.’

I agree. Brexit has become a shambles. Who voted for that?

It’s time the government asked ‘the people’ what is their will today, rather than relying on what they think it was yesterday (i.e. two years ago).

 

• Video – Why Brexit makes no sense, explained in 15 seconds:

________________________________________________________

• 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 The government still can’t agree what Brexit means appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Weekly schedule of President Donald Tusk 14-20 May 2018

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a declaration on behalf of the European Union’s member states following US President’s announcement on the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

It’s reported that police are investigating evidence that the chief executive of a key organisation that campaigned for Brexit allegedly committed criminal offences during the 2016 referendum.

This comes after the Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU the maximum £70,000 for multiple breaches of electoral rules.

The organisation is backed by Nigel Farage and funded by Arron Banks, and played a key role in campaigning for Brexit in the referendum.

The group failed to reveal “at least” £77,380 in its spending following the referendum vote, meaning it exceeded the legal spending limits for the referendum, as laid down by law.

The Electoral Commission has also referred a key figure in Leave.EU’s management team, Liz Bilney, to the Metropolitan Police due to “reasonable grounds to suspect” that criminal offences have occurred.

Mr Banks has refuted all the findings of the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission’s director of political finance, Bob Posner, said:

“The rules we enforce were put in place by Parliament to ensure transparency and public confidence in our democratic processes.

“It is therefore disappointing that Leave.EU, a key player in the EU referendum, was unable to abide by these rules.

“Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the Commission’s fines.”

The watchdog found the group had exceeded the spending limit for non-party registered campaigners by at least 10 per cent and said that the unlawful over-spend “may well have been considerably higher”.

A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard spokeswoman told The Independent:

“We can confirm that the Electoral Commission has referred a potential criminal offence under section 123(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

“This matter will be subject to assessment by officers from the Special Enquiry Team.”

The Electoral Commission’s investigation also uncovered that Leave.EU did not properly report the receipt of three loans from Mr Banks, totalling £6m, with dates around the transaction and the related interest rate incorrectly reported.

According to ‘The Code of Good Practice on Referendums’ issued by the Venice Commission, if the cap on spending is exceeded in a referendum by a significant amount, “the vote must be annulled.”

The Code, which is a non-binding guideline, was adopted by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in 2006/2007.

The Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law. It was created in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall, at a time of urgent need for constitutional assistance in Central and Eastern Europe.

The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and has signed up to the Venice Commission.

Members of the Commission are “senior academics, particularly in the fields of constitutional or international law, supreme or constitutional court judges or members of national parliaments”.

Representing the UK on the Commission is Jeffrey Jowell, Professor of Law and former Dean of University College London.

The work of the Commission in the field of elections, referendums and political parties is steered by the Council for Democratic Elections (CDE).

The CDE is made up of representatives of the Venice Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.

Their Code of Good Practice on Referendums states under clause 3.3. on referendum funding:

“National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns.

“As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts.

“In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled.

“It should be pointed out that the principle of equality of opportunity applies to public funding; equality should be ensured between a proposal’s supporters and opponents.”

The Code, however, is a guide only, and not legally binding. It’s also not clear whether the referendum overspend by Leave.EU of “at least £77,380” would represent “a significant margin” to warrant the referendum vote being annulled.

However, it’s now becoming clearer that the referendum campaign was seriously flawed, with overspending by Leave.EU that broke election law, and allegations of criminality, on top of all the lies and mistruths that the Leave campaigns had to rely upon to win the referendum.

Anyone who believes in democracy, whether a Leave or Remain supporter, should now be seriously concerned about the validity of the result of the EU referendum of 23 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 Should the EU referendum be annulled? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The EU wants to adhere to the nuclear deal signed with Iran despite Trump's decision to pull out. EU Foreign Affairs Representative Federica Mogherini described the deal as "decisive for security in the region, in Europe and in the world". Journalists comment on a situation in which new alliances are being forged and hope Europe will stand up to the US.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for an immediate end to the "hostile acts" between Iran and Israel. Israeli forces bombed Iranian military targets in Syria on Wednesday night, after Israeli border posts on the Golan Heights were attacked from there. Commentators criticise Europe's unwillingness to intervene in the conflict.

A few days after fresh elections were under discussion the coalition negotiations between the far-right Lega Nord and the Movimento Cinque Stelle are now making progress. The two parties have announced their intention of working out a joint programme and a plan for the new cabinet by Monday. This is not necessarily good news for Europe, commentators say.

Just over a year after being elected French president, Emmanuel Macron has been awarded the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen. The jurors said they were honoring Macron in recognition of his vision of a new Europe. But without Berlin's approval Macron's dream will remain unfulfilled and the award will be no more than a consolation prize, commentators point out.