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.
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 COUNTRYSHE’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.________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
The post They said Brexit would damage Britain appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
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?________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
The post Brexit is one big double-standard appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
Mentor People Who Aren’t Like You (HBR)
3 Thought-Provoking Questions To Ask Your Female Mentor (Forbes)
The Men who Mentor Women (HBR)
Male champions for women can be a tricky issue (I personally have deep reservations about the White Ribbon ambassadors, for example). This article outlines specific behaviours by male champions, mentors and coaches within organisations that lead to outcomes for the women they are supporting. Food for thought for any mentors I would say.
Sheryl Sandberg’s top 5 ways for women to support women (People)
The Conscious Style Guide (Zapier)
This guide encourages you to think about how to use language in an inclusive way. It covers gender as well as many other issues.
Women Are Using a New Hack to Take Certain Words Out of Their Emails (ATTN)
Did you know there was a Google plug-in to take the word “sorry” out of your emails?
How The Women On Obama’s Staff Made Sure Their Voices Were Heard (HuffPost)
I loved this story. A straightforward way that women can work together to tackle some of the challenges they face in the workplace.
Gender as a factor in negotiating raises (Nylon)
Interesting (and pretty shameful) article showing how important a factor gender is in negotiation. I’m doing some work on this for another project. I think we need to be teaching girls about worth,value and negotiation before they get near a job.
It takes hard work (Women’s Agenda)
Sometimes it’s easy to describe a problem, but less easy to work out how to solve it. This article describes how one CEO has gone about increasing women in her organisation, and provides some useful food for thought.
Five ways to boost your career opportunities (Talented Ladies’ Club)
I’m always wary of articles that start “Five ways to…” but these tips make good sense.
Five words that are killing your career (Women’s Agenda)
Another piece on the importance of language.
How to talk about female Olympians without being a regressive creep – a handy guide (Guardian)
How to write about women in [insert industry here]. This article is about the Olympics but could be about many other areas/industries.
Women tell us about the first time they they felt powerful (Vice)
There is incredible power in storytelling. Even simple stories can pack a punch. What are your stories about when you felt successful/powerful/energised? Thinking back to those times can help you identify what made them, which can help you rediscover that mojo.
Women, leadership and the myth of merit (SMH)
Whatever you think about quotas, this article raises the important question that the concept of merit is itself subjective. A useful reminder for women feeling overlooked in the workplace I think.
Six communication tips that promote workplace diversity (FastCompany)
Mentoring a woman in your organisation isn’t just about what she can do. It’s also about what everyone can do. This article suggests some communication actions that we can all think about in terms of how they impact on those around us.
Non-threatening leadership strategies for women (Cooper Review)
Satire helps too. This “advice” for women about how to be non-threatening is great…
Why don’t we trust angry women? (Psychology Today)
A psychology study suggests that when women lose their temper, they lose their influence with it. Does this mean women shouldn’t lose their temper in the workplace? That’s the inference but not the finding. But it is worth bearing in mind that the impact the anger will have might not be quite what you think.
Just Not Sorry app launched to help women by removing apologetic language from emails (ABC)
Someone has developed an app to stop women saying those little phrases that undermine them. I’m a horror for “Does that make sense?”. In my head I”m trying to make sure that I don’t move on without people having grasped what I’m saying, but I am fed up of hearing myself say it and totally see how it can come across as if I am not confident in what I have said.
How Our Idea Of “Strong Women” Unintentionally Hurts Female Leaders (Fast Company)
Language is incredibly important. I love this article about the problematic nature of the adjective “strong”. Thinking about language, including how you talk about yourself, seems to me to be a core part of coaching/mentoring.
The best reason yet to increase women in business leadership (Forbes)
Evidence is growing that having women leadership in an organisation is good for the bottom line. Women founders attract more investment, corporations with women at Board and C-suite level out-perform those with a more homogenous profile. Having said that, it does seem to me to be quite a functional argument and one that doesn’t really speak to the cultural change that is required. Or is that too cynical of me?
What is your body language really saying? (Women in Focus)
Some interesting ideas in here. I am a little guilty of the tilt in photos. I thought it was to create a bit of interest in the lines of the photo, but is that conditioning?!
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.
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 TESTSIn 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
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
The post Tories and Labour promise Brexit cake appeared first on Ideas on Europe.