European Union

General : "There can be no cultural relativism where human rights are concerned," said Louis Michel (ALDE, BE) on Monday, at the start of the 29th meeting of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, in Suva, Fiji. He said human rights could not be breached in the name of cultural diversity, adding that this issue was at the heart of discussions in Europe, as well as in the ACP states.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Nearly half of all people have failed to use streaming services from their own country while on holiday abroad. This practice known as geo-blocking is because of copyright protection. Current copyright rules date from 2001, but the European Commission will propose an update by the end of the year. German Greens/EFA member Julia Reda has drafted a report to serve as Parliament's input to the new legislation. The legal affairs committee votes on it on Tuesday 16 June. Watch it live on our website.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Greece's Alexis Tsipras with EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker last week

This weekend’s fireworks over Greece’s bailout were centred on a new counterproposal submitted by Greek ministers, who flew to Brussels to turn it over by hand. As the world knows by now, senior European Commission officials – acting on behalf of all three Greek bailout monitors – rejected it out of hand.

For Brussels Blog readers who want to evaluate the proposal for themselves, we obtained a copy of the new Greek plan and have posted it here (our friends and rivals at the Greek daily Kathimerini beat us to the punch, and you can read their summary here).

The most important thing to note is that, after weeks of holding out, Athens has agreed to meet the creditors’ demands on fiscal targets for this year and next year. In 2015, they’ve agreed to a primary budget surplus – revenues minus expenses when interest on sovereign debt isn’t included – of 1 per cent of gross domestic product, and 2 per cent for 2016. That’s exactly the levels demanded by creditors in a compromise plan presented to Alexis Tsipras, Greek prime minister, nearly two weeks ago.

But creditors do not believe the underlying figures in the document support those targets. One official cited the €700m Athens proposes to save next year through cracking down on value-added tax fraud as an item that fails to hold up under scrutiny.

Read more

India and the world are still getting used to Narendra Modi. A year after he came to power, the turbo-charged, much-travelled Indian Prime Minister has earned a reputation as an astute deal-maker and skilful economic diplomat. With at least 18 foreign trips and meetings with world leaders under his belt so far, “India occupies a pre-eminent place in the world arena”, says Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

He’s right. Modi continues to fascinate a closely watching world. Opinion is divided at home, however. Defenders of Modi say he is making government more efficient, improving the business climate and combating corruption. There is praise for the government’s ambitious multi-billion dollar economic agenda and plans to improve the country’s ramshackle infrastructure. Critics complain, however, that Modi is a man of rhetoric rather than action and point to slow, incremental reforms and lack of delivery on many election promises. “The celebrations of the first year in office of this government are in sharp contrast to the plight of the common person”, say social activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey as quoted in the Indian Express. They add: “The callousness of the government is most noticeable in its attitude to social sector issues”.

The jury may still be out on his government’s achievements but with his vision of a new India, complete with smart cities, state-of-the-art railway tracks, highways and airports, a digitally-empowered society, sustainable green policies and a “Make in India” campaign to attract global investors, Modi is shaking up India – and world perceptions of India. Recent statements by Jaitley that India would grow at a faster pace than the 7% growth expected in China, have added to the country’s new lustre.

“Ready to welcome the world with open arms”

Turning Modi’s agenda of an India which meets “first world standards” in an array of areas will require time, effort and money. Expectations are high. India’s business leaders are looking to Modi to boost growth in the $1.9 trillion economy. At the top of their wish list are investments in infrastructure, simplification of rules for acquiring land and implementation of a proposed national sales tax. Indian executives say the government should take the lead in financing new roads and public projects to give the maximum boost to Asia’s third-biggest economy.

India’s growing list of foreign friends is also interested. Many, including German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen, have already visited India to explore ways to partner with “Make in India” including in the defence manufacturing sector which Delhi says is a priority. Much to Modi’s delight other, equally enthusiastic, potential investors from China, Japan and South Korea are also lining up. South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and public sector Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam are joining hands to build warships. Another Korean firm, Samsung, will be collaborating with Kochi Shipyard to make liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. “India is standing ready to welcome the whole world with open arms”, says Modi.

Finally: a warm embrace also for the EU

Encouragingly, Modi’s warm embrace of foreign partners could soon also extend to the European Union, not just national European governments. Signs of a long-awaited Delhi-Brussels rapprochement have raised hopes that the two sides are now ready for action in three pivotal areas.

First, after a year of little or no high-level contact, Delhi and Brussels appear ready to resume negotiations on the much delayed Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA), a comprehensive deal covering all areas in goods, services and public procurement in both markets. Once signed, the agreement could act as an important launching pad for increased European investments in “Make in India”.

Second, India’s new economic programme opens up fresh avenues for increased EU-India synergies which go beyond the two sides’ traditional interaction. This could include cooperation in areas where both sides have a strong economic interest such as infrastructure investments, sustainable urbanisation, innovation and synergies between “Digital India” and the EU’s agenda for a Digital Single Market.

Third and most importantly, there are hopes that EU and Indian leaders could meet for summit talks, possibly in November this year to coincide with the G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey. With no bilateral summit held over the last 3 years, – the last such gathering was in February 2012 in Delhi – the EU-India relationship is in desperate need of renewed political direction to give it a new lease of life.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way

EU-India relations need to be broadened to include a “beyond-trade” agenda – and Modi’s wide-ranging modernisation agenda offers ample opportunities for such new synergies. Realistically, however, a quick relaunch of the stalled BTIA negotiations is required to get the relationship back on a constructive track and for discussions to begin in new areas.

This may now happen. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and Indian Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who met on the margins of an OECD meeting in Paris on June 4, have agreed to restart the BTIA talks as soon as possible. Contacts are expected to resume after the new Indian commerce secretary designate Rita A. Teaotia takes charge at the end of June, leading to cautious hopes that the deal – eight years in the making – will finally be clinched early next year.

For that to happen, key “last mile” issues will need to be resolved. The EU has made clear that it is targeting the emerging well-off Indian middle class for enhanced market access in automobiles, wines and spirits, and cheese. Brussels is also calling for reform in Indian laws on intellectual property rights, trade and environment, and trade and labour and wants liberal access in insurance, banking, and retail trade. India, for its part, is insisting on more labour mobility, professional work visas and recognition as a data secure country to attract more European investments in its high tech sector.

With two-way trade estimated at around €72.5 billion in 2014 while the EU’s investment stock in India was €34.7 billion in 2013, there is certainly ample room for improvement. But agreement on BTIA will require that both sides summon up the political will to look beyond the array of technical issues to the deeper strategic importance of their relations.

Let’s get practical

European investors are willing and eager to enter the Indian market, and India’s new global companies are setting up shop across Europe. However, Europe and India have much to discuss beyond trade and investments. European know-how could be valuable to India’s reform and modernisation agenda at a time when both sides are struggling to boost growth and create more jobs. As such, the focus should now be on hammering out a more practical, pragmatic and operational agenda which seeks to find as much common ground as possible between Modi’s aspirational programmes and the EU’s new initiatives to boost growth and jobs, including the investment plan drawn up by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and the creation of a digital European single market. Building smart cities, increasing the use of renewables and improving education and skills are other areas of possible cooperation. Also, while India may not want such counsel, the EU is well-placed to share its experience in building a single market, economic reform and modernisation, cutting back over-regulation – the new Commission priority – and improving the business environment.

Two key aspects of “Modi’s India” deserve special attention:

Come and “Make in India”

Since Modi took office a year ago, his government has been emphasising strengthening domestic manufacturing, including in defence, which is one of the 25 areas listed under the “Make in India” campaign which the Prime Minister underlined recently is “our commitment – and an invitation to all – to turn India into a new global manufacturing hub”. He added: ”We will do what it takes to make it a reality”. An EU-India deal on trade and investments will certainly ease the concerns of some European companies as they seek out manufacturing venues and projects in India. But the government must still deliver on its promises.

“Digital India”

With voice connectivity at only about 60% and data penetration far lower at about 20%, India ranks as low as 129 out of 166 countries on the ICT development index and has the dubious distinction of being placed in the group of least connected countries in the world. These are formidable challenges for making progress towards Digital India. But that’s not stopping Modi, whose own penchant for using social media is well known. Creating “Digital India” is a top government priority with plans underway to launch a dozen online portals for loans, rural e-commerce, national scholarships, lost and found children, e-hospital, tele-medicine and e-bag (online study material for students). In fact, India is considering doubling spending on a high-speed internet grid to connect villages across the country to 11 billion dollars, according to Communications Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

Get the leaders together

In order to get India and the EU talking to each other on these and other equally interesting topics, Modi’s “can do” spirit needs to filter down to different, less adventurous, echelons of the Indian bureaucracy. The European External Action Service, meanwhile, must work in tandem with the European Commission’s trade and other departments to hammer out a fresh EU-India agenda for action which looks at new areas and new interests. Such an action plan should be short, snappy and action-oriented, rather than the long “wish list” which the EU traditionally draws up with and for its partners. Such a hopefully pithy document could then be approved at the EU-India summit later this year.

Above all, both sides must take a fresh look at each other. European member states have already recognised the importance of India, both as a regional actor and an influential global player. It is time the EU institutions shed their reservations and engaged with India as an increasingly powerful 21st Century partner. Equally, India should recognise that while relations with national European governments are important, the EU also has much to offer. It would be a pity if the full potential of EU-India ties were to remain untapped and unexplored. Both sides have much to gain from deepening their relations. It won’t be easy to shed old habits and set off on a new course. But, yes, they must and yes, they can.

 

This article has been released in preparation to Friends of Europe’s debate: EUROPE, INDIA AND MODI – One year on

 

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / FLICKR - Al Jazeera English

The post Europe, India and Modi: it’s time to start over appeared first on Europe’s World.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/3_19_2014-102071--organic-agriculture-16-9-preview_106.14_thumb_169_1433962478_1433962478_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Council tries to reach a general approach on a proposal on organic farming. The proposal aims to review the existing legislation on organic production and labelling of organic products with the objective of removing obstacles to the development of organic production in the EU. Ministers also  are holding an exchange of views on a Commission communication concerning a consultation on fishing opportunities for 2016.

Download this video here.

Parliament looks forward to starting talks with ministers soon on reform to give the EU high common standards of data protection fit for the digital era, said its key negotiators on Monday, welcoming the Council's announcement that it had approved its negotiating mandate. The first meeting between the institutions is scheduled for 24 June and will be followed by a joint press conference.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : A possible ban on cloning farm animals, copyright protection and capital markets are only some of the topics being dealt with by Parliament this week. An EP delegation is also participating in the ACP-EU Joint Assembly in Suva, while EP President Martin Schulz is visiting London to meet UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In addition the international trade committee is meeting on Monday evening to decide what should happen regarding Parliament's recommendations on EU-US trade deal TTIP.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

On 15 June 2015, the Council reached a general approach on the general data protection regulation that establishes rules adapted to the digital era. The twin  aims of this regulation are to enhance the level of personal data protection for individuals and to increase business opportunities in the Digital Single Market. 

Latvia's minister for justice Dzintars Rasnačs said: "Today we have moved a great step closer to modernised and harmonised data protection framework for the European Union. I am very content that after more than 3 years of negotiations we have finally found a compromise on the text. The new data protection regulation, adapted to the needs of the digital age, will strengthen individual rights of our citizens and ensure a high standard of protection." 

A general approach means that the Council has a political agreement on the basis of which it can  now begin negotiations with the European Parliament with a view to reaching overall agreement on  new EU data protection rules. A first trilogue with the Parliament is planned for 24 June 2015. 

"I salute the readiness of the European Parliament to start the trilogue negotiations already next week. Hopefully we will come to the final agreement rapidly so that our citizens can enjoy the benefits of the reform as soon as possible", said Latvia's minister for justice Dzintars Rasnačs. 

The incoming Luxembourg Presidency indicated that, in parallel to the negotiations on the regulation, works on the data protection directive in the law enforcement area would be accelerated with the aim to find a general approach in October. Luxembourg Justice minister Felix Braz said: "This reform is a package and we have the firm intention to conclude by the end of this year".

Main elements of the agreement An enhanced level of data protection 

Personal data must be collected and processed lawfully under strict conditions and for a legitimate purpose. Data controllers (those responsible for the processing of data) must respect specific rules, such as the requirement for unambiguous consent by the data subject (the individual whose personal data is being processed), in order to be allowed to process personal data. 

Strengthened data protection rights give data subjects more control over their personal data: 

• easier access to their data.
• more detailed information about what happens to their personal data once they decide to share it: data controllers must be more transparent about how personal data is handled, for example by informing individuals about their privacy policy in clear and plain language.
• a right to erasure of personal data and "to be forgotten", enabling anyone for example to require that a service provider remove, without delay, personal data collected when that individual was a child.
• a right to portability enabling easier transmission of personal data from one service provider, for instance a social network, to another. This will also increase competition among service providers.
• limits to the use of 'profiling', i.e. automated processing of personal data to assess personal aspects, such as performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences etc.

 To ensure improved legal redress, data subjects will be able to  have any decision of their data protection authority reviewed by their national court, irrespective of the member state in which the data controller is established. 

Increased business opportunities in the Digital Single Market 

A single set of rules, valid across the EU and applicable both to European and non European companies offering their on-line services in the EU will prevent conflicting national data protection rules from disrupting  cross-border exchanges of data. Moreover, increased cooperation between the supervisory authorities in the member states will ensure coherent application of those rules throughout the EU. This will create fair competition and encourage companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to get the most out of the Digital Single Market. 

To reduce costs and provide legal certainty, in important transnational cases where several national supervisory authorities are involved, a single supervisory decision will be taken. This one-stop-shop mechanism will allow a company with subsidiaries in several member states to limit its contacts to  the data protection authority in the member state where it is established. 

In order to reduce compliance costs, data controllers can, on the basis of an assessment of the risk involved in their processing of personal data, define risk levels and put in place measures in line with  those levels. 

More and better tools to enforce compliance with the data protection rules 

Increasing responsibility and accountability of data controllers will improve compliance with the new data protection rules. Data controllers must implement appropriate security measures and provide, without undue delay, notification of personal data breaches to the supervisory authority as well as to those significantly affected by the breach. Controllers and processors may designate data protection officers in their organisation. Moreover, Union or national law can require them to do so. 

Data  subjects, as well as,  under certain conditions, data protection organisations can lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority or seek judicial remedy in cases where data protection rules are not respected. Furthermore, when such cases are confirmed, data controllers face fines of up to €1 million or 2% of their global annual turnover. 

Guarantees regarding transfers of personal data outside the EU 

The protection of transfers of personal data to third countries and international organisations is ensured through adequacy decisions. The Commission, with the involvement of member states and the European Parliament, is competent to decide whether the level of data protection offered by a third country or an international organization is adequate. In cases where no such decision has been taken, the transfer of personal data may only take place if the appropriate safeguards (standard data protection clauses, binding corporate rules, contractual clauses) are in place.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/d68254fc-054b-11e5-9717-bc764e084e2e_47.14_thumb_169_1433962011_1433962011_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Justice ministers seek to reach a general approach on the general data protection regulation and the free movement of citizens and businesses. The Council also holds a policy debate on a regulation establishing the European public prosecutor's office. Home affairs ministers discuss the follow up to the European Council statement on migration from 23 April. The agenda also includes the implementation of measures for the fight against terrorism.

Download this video here.

Place:        European Convention Centre (KIRCHBERG building), Luxembourg

All times are approximate and subject to change

Monday, 15 June (10.00)  -  JUSTICE 

+/- 07.50     Doorstep by Dzintars RASNAČS, Latvian Minister for Justice
+/- 10.00     Beginning of Justice Council meeting (in public session)
                     Adoption of the agenda
                     Adoption of legislative A Items
                     Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
                     such data (General data protection regulation)
                     Promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public
                     documents in the European Union           
+/- 13.30     Lunch discussion: "Judicial dimension of the new Digital Single Market Strategy"
+/- 15.10     Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office
                     Any other business          
+/- 17.10     Adoption of non-legislative A Items
+/- 18.00     Press conference (Justice)

Tuesday, 16 june (10.00)  -  HOME AFFAIRS 

+/- 09.40     Doorstep by Rihards KOZLOVSKIS, Latvian Minister for the Interior
+/- 10.00     Meeting of the MIXED COMMITTEE
                     Migratory issues
                     Any other business
+/- 13.40     Lunch discussion: "A European Agenda on Migration"
+/- 15.15     Beginning of Home Affairs Council meeting
                     Fight against terrorism
+/- 17.00     Mixed Committee related issues:
                     Any other business
+/- 18.00     Press conference (Home Affairs)

The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 will be the culmination of a global consultation process. The three-year initiative responds to the need to adapt the humanitarian system in order to make humanitarian action more efficient and effective in keeping pace with the rapidly changing context of emergencies. Consultations leading up to the Summit have provided the opportunity to gain perspectives from different regions of the world. As a result, three main priorities have been highlighted: the need for humanitarians to protect and preserve the dignity of people affected by conflict and disaster; a call to find innovative and sustainable ways of meeting people's needs; and a demand from the global South to 'localise' humanitarian response by strengthening local, national and regional capacities to prevent, manage and respond to crisis. There is potential for the European Union (EU) to take a leadership role in the process and influence the WHS outcome. ECHO´s new need assessment tools and the Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) as well as Resilience approaches offer a framework for responding to the challenges posed by protracted crises. This study recommends that the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid should be applied as a model for a 'Global Consensus on Humanitarian Action' or a 'Global Compact' recognising the diversity of today's humanitarian response system while taking advantage of all actors' complementary role. Furthermore, the EU and member states must commit to placing protection at the centre of humanitarian action and ensure that the EU´s humanitarian aid is not regarded as a crisis management tool, and allowed to become an instrument of its foreign policy.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 will be the culmination of a global consultation process. The three-year initiative responds to the need to adapt the humanitarian system in order to make humanitarian action more efficient and effective in keeping pace with the rapidly changing context of emergencies. Consultations leading up to the Summit have provided the opportunity to gain perspectives from different regions of the world. As a result, three main priorities have been highlighted: the need for humanitarians to protect and preserve the dignity of people affected by conflict and disaster; a call to find innovative and sustainable ways of meeting people's needs; and a demand from the global South to 'localise' humanitarian response by strengthening local, national and regional capacities to prevent, manage and respond to crisis. There is potential for the European Union (EU) to take a leadership role in the process and influence the WHS outcome. ECHO´s new need assessment tools and the Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) as well as Resilience approaches offer a framework for responding to the challenges posed by protracted crises. This study recommends that the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid should be applied as a model for a 'Global Consensus on Humanitarian Action' or a 'Global Compact' recognising the diversity of today's humanitarian response system while taking advantage of all actors' complementary role. Furthermore, the EU and member states must commit to placing protection at the centre of humanitarian action and ensure that the EU´s humanitarian aid is not regarded as a crisis management tool, and allowed to become an instrument of its foreign policy.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Nobody should take anything for granted when it comes to Britain’s vote to stay or leave the EU. Many of the mistakes and inaccurate assumptions that have overshadowed recent votes could be repeated with the EU vote and lead to Britain leaving the EU.

A British referendum on its EU membership vote was not something many in the EU (and some in the UK) wanted. A renegotiation and referendum are seen as an unwanted headache for a union with enough already on its plate. An exit would be unprecedented, opening a Pandora’s Box of problems for both sides.

Some pro-Europeans may now seek comfort in analysis that argues that when all is said and done the British won’t actually vote to leave. They’ll be buoyed by some polling data, arguments that Cameron is the best Prime Minister to secure an ‘in’ vote, that British businesses will be behind membership, that UKIP will lead ashambolic and divided ‘out’ campaign and so forth. Given what is at stake it pays to take a more cautious analysis.

Do you believe pollsters anymore?

Polls might point to an uphill struggle for the ‘out’ campaign, but we should all be cautious of taking polls too much for granted after the polling farce of the 2015 UK general election (the most polled vote in UK history). Pollsters also made a bad call over last year’s Scottish independence referendum. They correctly tracked the growth in support for independence, but the final result of 55:45 was much wider than many had thought in the final weeks. Despite the few polls in the closing weeks of the independence referendum, there have only ever been a few that point to Scottish independence. By contrast there have been numerous polls pointing to a vote to leave the EU.

Will Cameron secure a renegotiation?

It’s not clear if Cameron can secure much by way of a renegotiation. Britain’s EU debate is often blind to how the rest of the EU must agree to its demands. The rest of the EU wants to see reform, but survey the member states and you find limited sympathy for a UK that can appear to be blackmailing them. What they will offer is therefore unclear. The crunch area of free movement of people in particular looks set to cause tensions throughout the EU. If Britain’s 1975 renegotiation is anything to go by then Britain will get largely token changes.

Will the British public believe in Cameron’s renegotiation?

Nobody should assume the British people will swallow another token renegotiation. Eurosceptics, the media, academics, perhaps even some supporters of an ‘in’ vote (those uneasy with the nature of the renegotiation) will shine many lights on and through the deal. When in a 2011 referendum the British people rejected AV they did so in large part because the referendum turned into a vote on the popularity of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, but also because they recognised that AV – to quote Nick Clegg himself – was a ‘miserable little compromise’. After the experiences in Scotland, voters are also now likely to see through any last minute commitments in the face of a rising ‘out’ vote.

Is Cameron the best Prime Minister to win a referendum?

Cameron is hailed as the best man to lead the UK through a referendum because he can guarantee a large proportion of the Conservative party and its supporters will follow him in a vote to stay in. Yet he is a prime minister who has played fast and loose with the unity of the UK and the UK’s membership of the EU. He governs with a majority of 12. He led a lacklustre election campaign that seemed to win by accident. He has struggled to hold his party together over Europe, making repeated concessions to Eurosceptics. Finally standing up to them may split his party and lead to a leadership challenge. His concentration could turn to holding his party and premiership together more than holding the UK in the EU. It is unclear whether he will bind ministers through collective cabinet responsibility, or punish those reluctant to back fully any ‘in’ campaign. If his position becomes exposed then expect leadership hopefuls to sense danger in backing him and the ‘in’ vote. Other parties may back off if they sense a danger from tying themselves too closely to the leader of a losing campaign. This was one reason behind Labour leader Ed Miliband’s reluctance to get behind Nick Clegg in the AV referendum.

Will ‘in’ or ‘out’ run the most shambolic campaign?

Both campaigns will struggle to define a clear message and strategy thanks to political differences, personal dislikes and financial problems. The ‘in’ campaign is likely to break-up as soon as the referendum is concluded. UK pro-European campaigns have a record of struggling to exist let alone campaigning effectively. Similar problems beset Scotland’s unionist campaign. There has been much speculation whether the ‘out’ campaign would be better off not relying on UKIP and the one-man show of Nigel Farage. But UKIP can provide some single-party unity that if played right could mirror the SNP’s role as the core of the independence movement. The ‘out’ campaign may struggle to find the grass roots movement that drove Scotland’s independence campaign. That said, UKIP has shown that it can sometimes reach out to disaffected voters by presenting itself as a party apart from the Westminster elite. Like the SNP, the ‘out’ campaign could also be buoyed by the campaign, coming to see any defeat as a tactical as opposed strategic one. UKIP will likely continue to grow, fuelled by factors that are not just about Europe. Left wing Eurosceptic groups, until now largely hidden in the UK, will be given attention thanks to their rejection of what they see as the EU’s imposition of neo-liberal agendas on the whole of Europe.

Who will be better at selling an unknown?

The ‘out’ campaign will struggle to set out a clear agenda for a post-EU Britain. Even UKIP is vague about what relationship it wants the UK to seek. This does not mean the ‘in’ campaign will be in a stronger position. The ‘in’ side will have to await Cameron’s renegotiation deal and not all may back in completely. Some ‘in’ supporters – especially on the left – will be uneasy with any deal that limits such things as workers rights. The ‘in’ campaign may resort to a repeat of ‘Project Fear’, the term applied (especially by their opponents) to the approach taken by unionists in Scotland of arguing about the unknowns and dangers of independence rather than making a positive case for staying. This is in no small part down to the larger unknown of what it is that the EU itself is, ‘ever closer union’ being a vague aspiration.

Who can win hearts and minds?

Scotland’s pro-union campaign relied largely on facts and figures to back the case for remaining in the UK. Its lack of emotional appeal was a key weakness. When it comes to the EU, banging on about trade and jobs can be effective but only gets the pro-EU side so far. Britain’s political debate has long yearned for more than a commitment to the EU. Arguing Britain should accept a reduced place in the world doesn’t work as an optimistic vision to be sold to a people that still embrace a global identity. Ideas of ‘independence’ or ‘freedom’ from Europe might be completely overblown in reality, but they play to deep national desires. Growing English nationalism means using the term ‘Little Englander’ will turn hearts against the ‘in’ campaign. Arguments the EU is a project to create peace won’t work when the Cold War let alone the Second World War are distant memories. Eurosceptics will also appeal to the heart by arguing you can love Europe – embrace a European identity that ranges from food and sport to philosophy and science – while opposing the EU.

Can you bank on the business community for support?

Britons might not be sold on the idea of ‘ever closer union’ but even some Eurosceptics are uneasy at the idea of leaving the Single Market. At the same time, problems in the Eurozone, Europe’s relative decline and emerging markets mean the EU is no longer the economic future it appeared in the 1970s when Britain was the ‘Sick man of Europe’. Britain’s decision not to join the Euro does not appear to have cost it as heavily as some once warned. Business support is therefore no longer as united as it was. Some business backing could actually be harmful to the ‘in’ campaign. The City of London might be vital to the UK’s economy, but it is viewed with a great deal of suspicion. Small and medium sized enterprises, which today make up the majority of the UK economy, do not rely as directly on the links the single market creates. If inward investment is not clearly affected by fears of a Brexit – as has so far been the case – then we should expect people to be sceptical of any economic warnings.

Will the media support an ‘in’ vote?

Just as the business community is no longer as overwhelmingly in favour of UK membership, so too is the UK media. A print media beset by declining sales will continue playing to a Eurosceptic agenda which portrays Europe as a hostile other. Some titles may pinch their noses while they urge their readers to vote to stay in, but some of their columnists will not hold back. Local newspapers, still widely trusted, could be easily overlooked. When it comes to online media, one only has to read the comments sections of most online discussions on EU stories to witness how prolific ‘Cyberkips’ can be. The role of twitter or other online campaigning can be overplayed, but its growing role leaves Eurosceptics with an added edge.

Will the British people be patronised?

But surely the British people will see sense once they wake up to the horrible predictions of what would follow a Brexit – of 3 million jobs gone, of a Britain doomed to be stripped of its UNSC seat, of London sliding into irrelevance and a property slump. There will of course be costs from an exit. But the warnings can be deeply patronising and appear over the top. Pro-Europeanism can be associated with an aloof, metropolitan elite living in a bubble of their own, detached from the reality of the daily struggle of the average British man or woman. No nation’s citizens like being told what to do by other states or an elite who think that only they know best. The British are no exception.

Will the referendum really be about Europe?

All referendums run the risk of becoming votes on something else and the EU vote could be no exception. Talk of holding the vote in 2016 instead of 2017 reflects a desire to get the issue out of the way while Cameron still enjoys something of a honeymoon. Holding such a vote towards the middle of any government’s time in office risks turning the vote into one on the government’s – and in particular, Cameron’s – popularity. But 2016 might not be possible if the Lords delays the referendum bill or the EU refuses to agree any speedy renegotiation. The day chosen may itself affect the result thanks to anything from bad weather through to an unexpected event. Finally, have the political class fully understood what it is that the British people are angry about with regard to the EU? Is the key issue immigration, trade, sovereignty, suspicion of foreigners or anger at the dysfunctional nature of the UK’s political system? UK political parties have often misjudged what has been driving Scottish nationalism. They could do the same over Europe.

Will Scotland be a factor?

The SNP does not want to see Scotland forced to leave the EU by a UK-wide ‘out’ vote. Nevertheless the vote could provide the SNP with the reason to call another independence referendum, should Scotland vote in favour of remaining in the EU while the rest of the UK votes to leave. The SNP will also be uneasy at forming part of a grand-alliance with those UK parties it accuses of neglecting Scotland. The possibility of Scotland splitting from the UK if the UK splits from Europe may not lead some – largely Conservative – politicians to reappraise their opposition to the EU. The connections between Euroscepticism and English nationalism mean that some in England would welcome an England separated from Europe and Scotland.

Will European events sink a British vote?

The EU today is not something that can be sold with much of a positive image. If a Grexit comes about and the EU struggles to cope then any UK ‘in’ campaign may find itself overwhelmed by hostility to staying in what can appear to be a deeply dysfunctional union. Britons might underestimate the extent to which Britain can separate itself from such events, but there could still be a strong desire to reject any close relationship. It may not take any cataclysmic event to influence the vote. Smaller disputes over the budget, controversial new laws or policy, or questionable behaviour in the EU’s institutions and leadership would be jumped on – as they have long been used – by the ‘out’ campaign as evidence of the EU’s inherent flaws.

Who gets to vote?

Recent headlines that ‘immigrants’ would be denied a vote in the referendum (except Commonwealth and Irish immigrants) highlighted tense feelings on both sides of the campaign about the inclusion of EU citizens, seen as highly likely to vote to stay in the EU. The UK is home to several million citizens from other EU state. The potential influence of their vote may not be as big as some might believe. The same might be said of voters who have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years (and are therefore excluded), and 16 and 17 year olds who some would like to be given a vote, as happened in Scotland. But if the vote is a close one then the government may rue the decision to exclude these people. A similar decision to exclude Scots living elsewhere in the UK from voting in Scotland’s independence referendum may have cost the unionist side crucial votes. Excluding these groups has setup a potential fight with both the House of Lords and some other EU member states, potentially delaying the date of any referendum.

Will it settle the issue?

The European question is about more than whether to be or not to be in Europe. Referendums rarely settle issues that are this complex. As with the Scottish referendum it merely provides a temporary way of managing an issue. Had Scotland voted to leave the UK what would have followed would have been decades of bitter debates about implementing separation, the meaning of sovereignty, managing shared responsibilities and coming to terms with changing identities. An EU referendum is unlikely to be any different, especially if the majority is a slim one. Britain could easily face another referendum sooner rather than later.

This article first appeared on E!Sharp. 

The post Why it might not be all right on the Euro-referendum night appeared first on Ideas on Europe.