Ideas on Europe Blog

 

There’s not much that’s clear so far in the referendum, but one thing that looks pretty certain is that the campaign has yet to catch the public’s interest fully. Indeed, it might not be pushing things too far to say that most people don’t really care.

The reasons for this are many and various. Firstly, the EU has not been an issue of significant public interest for over a decade: as much as it’s motivated Tory MPs and Eurosceptic activists, the same hasn’t been true of the wider population. Secondly, and related to this, levels of knowledge about the EU remain low, which acts as a disincentive to engage with substantive points of debate. Finally, this is a very long campaign, having been set in train properly by Cameron’s general election success last May, with a couple of years before that of it being a possibility.

In short, people don’t care, don’t understand and don’t feel a sense of urgency.

Clearly, some of this is contingent: as we close in on 23 June, so more people will become interested and engaged. However, the question will be whether this is a big or a small effect.

Why does this matter?

There are two main arguments on this. The main one is the democratic need for participation in a mechanism that is precisely designed to let people have a voice. Whatever the outcome, if it results from a low turnout, then it robs that decision of much of its legitimacy. That holds notwithstanding the British political convention that non-participation is a valid political act: since politicians have decided that they cannot make the decision themselves, it falls to the citizenry to take that role.

The second argument is more self-serving for the Remain camp. Turnout looks more and more to be the crucial factor in this referendum: the polling strongly suggests that the higher that turnout, the more likely a Remain vote will be. This matters all the more, given the lack of obvious movement in polls in recent weeks, despite the European Council deal, Boris’ coming-out or any other event. Of course, the flip side of this is that if turnout can be raised, and Leave still win, then Leave’s mandate will be all the stronger.

How do you get lift-off?

Motivations to one side, the question then is one of how you get significant public engagement. As I’ve argued on these pages many times before, engagement would not only be good for democracy, but also for the consolidation of a clearer British policy towards the EU, which has long floundered on a lack of obvious objectives.

If we assume that there will not be a spontaneous engagement by most people, then something needs to happen to make engagement look attractive. Here it’s helpful to think about this in terms of positive and negative drivers.

On the positive side, we might have the arrival of a strong voice into the debate, who fuels a lot of public interest. However, even writing that sentence highlights the difficulty: we’ve shot our bolts on Boris, Blair, Obama, Clarkson and even the Queen, so it’s not going to be anyone you’ve heard of.

Likewise, the structural inability of the Leave campaign to settle on a single plan for post-membership and the indifference of Remain to strategise how they will continue to promote British interests within the EU mean that the scope of a positive agenda also looks slim.

Negative drivers look more likely. The reaction to external voices – essentially, “butt out of our debate” – illustrates this well, where debate is not valued per se, but only within a heavily gate-kept framework. The things that are more likely to cut through that are also more likely to be negative articulations of fears or risks.

Partly, that comes from the wider environment. An EU facing another summer of the migrant crisis, weak Eurozone economic performance, aggressive Russian posturing, awkward Turkish and TTIP negotiations and assorted populist challenges within member states looks a lot like a recipe for multiple negative headlines. Worse still, those potential points of weakness or failure would go straight to challenging what limited legitimacy the EU has, based on its outputs.

Making that even more difficult, both sides in the campaign might be tempted to push negative claims about each other. While Leave might have an embarrassment of riches in extrapolating from the EU’s failures, so too can Remain make hay from the contradictions that arise from the multiple alternative futures offered outside the EU. Whatever one thinks of “Project Fear” type agendas, shock stories do have some media value. It’s not hard to imagine pieces about either outcome will destroy the NHS, cripple the economy, mean the end of the British countryside as we know it, and the rest.

To some extent, all of these things are already out there: indeed, that rather proves the point that publics aren’t that engaged. Drivers can only got so far if they lack receptive audiences. The danger is that the only things that matter are those that occur in the final couple of weeks: given the extent of the ramifications of the decision, that looks rather careless, both on the part of politicians and on the part of citizens.

The post Achieving lift-off in the referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Thee Queen has issued a formal complaint against The Sun newspaper’s claim that she supports Brexit.

Last week The Sun ran a front-page ‘exclusive’ claiming that, ‘the Queen has been hailed as a supporter of Brexit’.

According to the Sun’s version of events, ‘Her majesty let rip’ during a lunch at Windsor Castle with the then deputy prime minister and Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg.

It’s reported that the event took place in 2011 during the coalition government between the Conservatives and Lib-Dems.

The Sun’s report asserted:

‘The 89-year-old monarch firmly told passionate pro-European Mr Clegg that she believed the EU was heading in the wrong direction. Her stinging reprimand went on for “quite a while”, leaving other guests around the table stunned.’

And The Sun added,

‘Brexit-backing Tory MPs are already leaping on The Sun’s revelations as a strong sign the Queen is secretly on the side of Leave ahead of the landmark EU referendum on June 23.’

The newspaper also quoted Tory Eurosceptic MP, Jacob Rees Mogg as saying:

‘The reason we all sing God Save The Queen so heartily is because we always believe she is there to protect us from European encroachment.’

Former Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, has  complained that he had no recollection of the conversation ever taking place.

Buckingham Palace officials confirmed that the Queen is neutral on matters of politics, and that she disputes The Sun’s version of events.

In modern times the Queen cannot throw the Editor of the Sun, Tony Gallagher, or indeed, The Sun’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, into the Tower of London, although maybe she’d like to.

So instead, The Queen  is making a complaint to IPSO, the ‘Independent Press Standards Organisation.’

Although, I would hardly call IPSO independent – it’s owned, and mostly run, by the press: the very people who would want to protect their industry, rather than uphold complaints against it.

The Queen is complaining to IPSO under clause 1 of their ethics code called, The Editors Code of Practice, which deals specifically with inaccurate stories in the newspapers. However, it should be noted that the chairman of the Editors Code of Practice is none other than Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail – who just attended the wedding of Rupert Murdoch, owner of The Sun.

The Sun says it stands by its story that the Queen supports Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, and that it has impeccable sources and will “defend this complaint vigorously”.

I don’t have confidence that the press watchdog – mostly run by the press – will adequately investigate or adjudicate on the Queen’s complaint.  Let’s see.. I would hope to be surprised and proved wrong, as for sure, we do need a proper press regulator. (See my video below: why I won’t use IPSO)

In the meantime, although we don’t know for sure what the Queen said in private, we do know what she said in public.  Last June, speaking in Germany, the Queen talked about Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe.

(That’s four years after her disputed comments in private that the EU was ‘heading in the wrong direction’).

Speaking with her Greek husband by her side, the Queen at least hinted that she supports the UK’s continued membership of the European Union.  The Queen spoke in front of an audience of 700 dignitaries in Berlin, including British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

She said:

“The United Kingdom has always been closely involved in its continent. Even when our main focus was elsewhere in the world, our people played a key part in Europe.”

And addressing German President, Joachim Gauck, the Queen continued:

“In our lives, Mr President, we have seen the worst but also the best of our continent. We have witnessed how quickly things can change for the better. But we know that we must work hard to maintain the benefits of the post-war world.

“We know that division in Europe is dangerous and that we must guard against it in the West as well as in the East of our continent. That remains a common endeavour.”

Observed The Guardian at the time:

‘As she spoke, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who sat at the Queen’s table in Berlin’s Schloss Bellevue along with her husband Joachim Sauer, nodded vigorously, a gesture that did not go unnoticed among observers.’

The Queen spoke of the advantages of Britons emigrating to the rest of Europe in the past, such as the Welsh engineer, John Hughes. He founded the mining town of Donetsk, now in Ukraine, in the Russian empire of the 19th century.

She also mentioned the 17th-century Scottish publican Richard Cant, who moved his family to Pomerania.

“His son moved further east to Memel and his grandson then moved south to Königsberg, where Richard’s great-grandson, Immanuel Kant, was born,” said the Queen.

The German media were very supportive of the Queen’s visit. The Bild mass daily described her as “the secret weapon of British diplomacy” on a visit to “remind everyone of how poor Europe would be without the UK”.

And the Handelsblatt business daily commented:

‘Every gesture, every word of the queen in the coming days has meaning, for Germany, Britain, Europe. It is the politics of the apolitical.’

But possibly it was Britain’s ‘Guardian’ newspaper headline that summed up both the mood and impression following the Queen’s historic speech:

‘The Queen hints at desire for Britain to remain in European Union.’

 * Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• They want their country back, not yours
• Winston Churchill wrongly recruited for Brexit
• Never again? It’s happening again
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Why I won’t use IPSO

Click here to view the embedded video.

• Share the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

#Queen complains against @TheSun front page that she supports #Brexit. See my Facebook: https://t.co/vaaucbSEqE pic.twitter.com/qFaJeoTzDA

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) March 9, 2016

What the #Queen really said about #Europe (official version) My blog; her #Majesty’s speech: https://t.co/e9KdgJ9p3i pic.twitter.com/gBbBycLtwc

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) March 15, 2016

 

The post What the Queen really said about Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson said that if Britain left the EU, “we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels”.

Mr Johnson made his remarks after Michael Gove and Philip Hammond became the first two Cabinet ministers openly to support leaving the EU unless there is significant reform.

But responding in his Telegraph article, titled ‘We must be ready to leave the EU if we don’t get what we want’, Mr Johnson claimed that, “the question of EU membership is no longer of key importance to the destiny of this country”.

In his article, Mr Johnson added that he supports an EU referendum – but warned that Britain’s problems will not be solved by simply leaving the EU as many of his Conservative colleagues apparently believe.

The mayor asserted:

“If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by ‘Bwussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”

He added:

“Why are we still, person for person, so much less productive than the Germans? That is now a question more than a century old, and the answer is nothing to do with the EU. In or out of the EU, we must have a clear vision of how we are going to be competitive in a global economy.”

Mr Johnson warned that there might be a risk that international companies could stop investing in Britain if we left the EU. He also cautioned that UK firms could be put at a “long-term disadvantage” if Britain was unable to “influence the standards and regulations in Brussels.”

There was also an argument, alerted Mr Johnson, that the EU, “is better placed to strike trade deals with the US, or China, than the UK on its own” – although this proposition hadn’t actually been tested.

Mr Johnson added that, “More generally, there is a risk that leaving the EU will be globally interpreted as a narrow, xenophobic, backward-looking thing to do.”

He wrote that there may be other good reasons for Britain to stay in the EU, “but I can’t think of them now.” On the other hand, if Britain left the EU, “we could save money… we get back our sovereignty.. we can no longer blame Brussels.”

But Mr Johnson’s article concluded that we “have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Bwussels..”

And in a nuanced comment on the EU referendum debate, the London Mayor urged, “we need a much more informed debate about the pluses and minuses of EU membership”.

It should be noted that Mr Johnson wrote his article for The Telegraph back in May 2013.

Now, Mr Johnson is campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union. Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph he stated, “There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU.”

The influential economist, John Maynard Keynes, is often quoted as saying, “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

Have the facts about the EU fundamentally changed since 2013?

No.

So why has Mr Johnson now changed his mind and is campaigning for Britain to leave the EU to ‘solve our problems’?

Your guess is as good as mine..

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• Boris Johnson’s big blunder
  
• They want their country back, not yours
  
• Never again? It’s happening again
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

 Join and share the discussion on Facebook:

The post How Boris changed his mind on Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established under the League of Nations. Located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the ICJ is composed of 15 judges, who are elected by the U.N. General Assembly to serve nine-year terms.

The ICJ is empowered to decide two types of cases. First, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions when requested to do so by the Security Council, the General Assembly or several other United Nations bodies authorized to request such opinions. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued twenty-one advisory opinions.

Second, the Court can exercise jurisdiction in a contentious case between two or more States with the consent of the parties. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, except to the extent that a State espouses their claims. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued judgments in thirty-nine contentious cases. That amounts to the Court hearing an average of less than two cases each year. During the 1990s, however, the Court became increasingly active, and it currently has eight contentious cases, and two requests for advisory opinions on its docket.

Consent to jurisdiction over contentious cases can be given in three ways. First, States can agree to have their disputes decided by the ICJ on an ad hoc basis. Second, many treaties contain provisions giving the ICJ jurisdiction over any dispute between parties to the treaty as to its interpretation or application. Third, States may make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ statute, agreeing to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to other States that have made a like declaration. As of 1997, fifty-nine States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Declarations made under Article 36(2) may specifically exclude certain categories of disputes from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. Such declarations are subject to reciprocity, and a defendant state against which a proceeding is brought may invoke an exclusion not stipulated in its own declaration but included in the declaration of the plaintiff state.

The United States had agreed in 1946 to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with two principal exceptions. The first, known as the “Connelly reservation,” provided that the United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. The second, known as the “Vandenberg reservation” exempted the United States from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction with respect to any disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court. After the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s suit against the United States concerning U.S. support of the Contras and mining of Nicaragua harbors, the United States terminated its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The termination of the United States’ acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction has not completely immunized the United States from the ICJ. The United States has subsequently been hailed before the ICJ on several occasions pursuant to clauses contained in multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party. It has become the recent practice of the United States to make a reservation opting out of the ICJ jurisdiction clause of multilateral treaties at the time of ratification, but the United States continues to be party to over one hundred treaties containing an ICJ jurisdiction clause.

Judgments of the ICJ are binding between the parties. Under Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, all members of the United Nations have undertaken to comply with a judgment of the ICJ in any case to which they are parties. If a party fails to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, any other party may call on the Security Council to enforce the judgment. ICJ decisions are widely recognized as important statements of existing international law, and they are often cited as authority to support fundamental principles of international legal development.

Contentious cases usually involve three phases. First, the parties often request that the ICJ “indicate” provisional measures in order to preserve their respective rights while a case is pending. Decisions on provisional measures are usually issued within a few weeks from the initial request. While provisional measures are somewhat analogous to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order under U.S. domestic law, the court has never ruled whether an order indicating provisional measures is mandatory on the parties. The second phase involves challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the matter before making a decision. Finally, the Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the merits of the case. From start to finish, the ICJ may take several years to rule on a dispute. The final decision of the ICJ is not subject to appeal.

The post The International Court of Justice appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Britain belongs with the European Union, despite their differences.

The European Union is a crucial part of the fabrics that make up Great Britain. Although, it is nowadays one of the most important talking points in British politics, for a very long time, the European Union had not occupied the consciousness of many British people. As times keep changing the picture of British politics, factors such as the eurozone crisis happening in fellow European countries, has not managed to alter the perspective that if the British are faced with a sudden in-out referendum, then they are going to overwhelmingly steer clear from the thought of Britain exiting the European Union.

David Cameron started playing a risky game in politics the moment he decided to launch a referendum for Britain’s status within the European Union. His basket of thoughts on complex issues such as sovereignty and migration has called for an upheaval of the European Union simply to push in a limited set of reforms that could have been done without, like his avoidance of addressing his own instigated referendum, for a noticeable period of time. This pieced-together decision of numerous heads of governments is singularly suggestive of the referendum scheduled for June 23 to be an aimless, unclear, harmful, senseless and odd piece of political work.

People who are for a Brexit have no clue about what are the positives of leaving the European Union and the British are far too conservative to entertain the idea that their own sovereign state will ever be acting independently from the European Union. Great Britain had signed the Maastricht Treaty, with its fellow European countries in 1992 that had officially proclaimed the European Union into reality, so the public have never really been denied the chance to express their opinion with freedom about the Union. This legally binding referendum should, therefore be looked upon as an opportunity instead to let the British permanently become a part of the European Union with the help of international law. The deal should be more authoritative and not be subjected to the decisions of the heads of governments of all of the member states, at any point in time.

The Eurozone crisis is posing as a major problem for the British perspective on the European Union.

If there is any dissatisfaction involved with Britain’s position in the European Union, then it should be reserved for certain proposed amendments instead, which the 1969 Vienna convention already permits. Let’s not beat around the bush: Euroscepticism is a major driver of political ideologies for all British parties and they have very rarely been able to address concerns over European integration. Geographically, Britain is detached from Europe as an island country and has had a victorious record at the Second World War. The foundations of British thought were laid with those ideas in mind and factors, such as pride, a love for democracy, liberty and independence, made Britain what it is today: individualistic.

Britain never thought it necessary to cooperate with fellow European powers for the common good because it also had the Commonwealth (and a positive relationship with the United States) to ponder about. Furthermore, Britain still runs on the Anglo-Saxon model of less regulation and more capitalism inclusive of national social welfare, unlike European states who like to put their faith in state interference. Meanwhile, the eurozone crisis sounds alarming to Euroscepticism here because now whilst doing common good to Europe, states are also being asked to pitch in and support weaker states, through national wealth redistribution. This crisis is denting the idea of Europe for the British, coupled up with fluctuating levels of British interest in the EU, when you want to talk about the nation’s history. During the early eighties, most British people were not concerned with the thought of Europe and in the nineties, many members of the general public quizzed the European agenda for Britain.

The European Union influences policy in Great Britain but there is this likelihood that the British public will want different sets of opinions guiding all of that for the many different policy divisions, such as for foreign policy and social policy. But the European Union does not need to dictate British national policy if it doesn’t want to because subjects such as the labour market, education and employment can be led with a different British point of view, than the kind that would perhaps guide a more European policy framework. It is also important to note that since post-2011 (and specifically when the Masstricht Treaty was signed) the popularity index for Britain’s position inside of the European Union peaked. This means that despite the differences in attitudes and thinking over Europe, the British are still deeply interested in Britain remaining a part of the European Union.

The post The Brexit Debate appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

When the European Council finally drew to a close on February 19, 2016, the deal to help secure the UK’s continued membership in the European Union (called the ‘Anti-Brexit’ deal in continental newspapers) was finally agreed. After years of discussions and months of negotiations, there was a deal, publically available. This document provides insight into the issues highest on the UK renegotiation agenda, and how the UK and its EU partners were able to reach a compromise. Analysing it from an environmental perspective reveals a number of surprises.

Firstly, this document does mention the environment. Looking back to UK calls for EU reform over the last twenty years, this should not be surprising. Hence, in the wake of the Danish ‘no’ vote to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the Major Government produced a ‘hit list’ of social and environmental legislation it wanted scrapped. In his 2013 Bloomberg Speech and in the discussions which ensued in the UK’s House of Commons afterwards, David Cameron identified environmental policies as an area in which the EU had gone too far. But when it came to the negotiation proper, the environment together with the Common Agricultural Policy — two usual suspects when it comes to UK-sponsored EU reform — were conspicuously absent.  Hence it is surprising in itself that the environment even gets not one, but four mentions in the text (although two of these refer to the “changing environment” – a reference to the economic, not the natural, environment).

Secondly, environment is mentioned in relation to competitiveness – as part of “Section B” on competitiveness of the UK-EU deal as well as in the annexed European Council declaration on competitiveness. This, in itself, is not surprising. Recent British efforts to increase EU action on ‘red tape’ decried the economic cost of environmental action (e.g. the 2013 Business Task Force report pushed for a reform of REACH, and opposed the proposed soil directive). Similarly, at EU level, talks of REFIT and an ever greater focus by Team Juncker on better regulation has been interpreted as pitting the environment against competitiveness (and favouring the latter) by European environmental NGOs in their highly successful #NatureAlert campaign. No, what is surprising is that the environment figures in a rather positive light in this document:

 UK-EU deal (p.15)

At the same time, the relevant EU institutions and the Member States will take concrete steps towards better regulation, which is a key driver to deliver the above-mentioned objectives. This means lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation as foreseen in the Declaration of the Commission on a subsidiarity implementation mechanism and a burden reduction implementation mechanism, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection.

Competitiveness declaration (p. 30)

The European Council urges all EU institutions and Member States to strive for better regulation and to repeal unnecessary legislation in order to enhance EU competitiveness while having due regard to the need to maintain high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection. This is a key driver to deliver economic growth, foster competitiveness and job creation.

So, what does this deal mean for the future of EU environmental policy? These EUCO conclusions confirm that, even when talking about environmental policy in a rather positive tone, EU governments are talking about its achievements in the past tense – it is about “continuing to ensure” and “maintain[ing]” “high standards”. It is not about raising standards and policy expansion. High environmental standards are caveats to the better regulation surge – not an alternative policy agenda. While this may alleviate concerns about the fate of the environmental acquis (i.e. the rules already in place) it does nothing to alleviate concerns about the EU’s capacity for increasing its ambition in the future. This is particularly problematic for areas in which the EU is already falling behind – with regard to biodiversity, where its current policies fall short of its objective to halt biodiversity loss by 2020, and with regard to climate change, where the surprisingly ambitious Paris COP21 deal means EU climate policies are not currently strong enough to deliver on the Paris pledge.

 

The post A surprising deal? Cameron’s ‘reformed EU’ & the environment appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Business minister, Anna Soubry, the most enthusiastic pro-EU member of the government’s cabinet, has sent a letter to UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, with three vital questions.

She posed the questions after Mr Farage made clear that he didn’t want Britain to remain in the Single Market of Europe if the referendum resulted in a ‘leave’ decision. Instead, said Mr Farage, he wanted Britain to be “a fully independent country” (although it’s not quite clear what that means).

Subsequently, Ms Soubry sent these three questions to Mr Farage:

1. Was he happy that his policy would increase the costs for business because the UK would face the EU’s common external tariff, which stands at 10% for cars and 15% for food?

2. How long would it take for the UK to renegotiate trade deals with more than 50 countries with whom the UK trades on the basis of EU deals?

3. Did Farage accept that the UK would have to accept many EU regulations, in order to trade with the EU, while having no say over how they were drawn up?

Ms Soubry also asked Mr Farage:

“I suspect you will claim that these consequences are avoidable by our negotiating a new ‘free trade deal’ with the EU. If so, can you set out precisely the terms you would expect and any evidence that they are credible and achievable? If not, your response will be taken as a sign that you want only to cover up the serious consequences of Britain leaving Europe.”

An answer is awaited from Mr Farage.

Footnote: What interests me is why any answers from Mr Farage should be taken seriously? He is not in power. He is not a Member of Parliament. He is not in government. His party only has one MP who most often disagrees with Mr Farage on Britain’s possible Brexit terms.

If Britain decides on 23 June to leave the EU, Mr Farage still won’t be in power. What difference will his answers make (assuming he can answer at all)?

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• UKIP’s fantasy island
  
• What does Brexit look like? Nobody knows
• Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Farage?
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read: ‘Debate, don’t hate’

• Share and join the discussions about this article on Twitter:

#EUReferendum 3 questions for @Nigel_Farage by #UKgov minister @Anna_Soubry See my Facebook: https://t.co/mL8IUSA513 pic.twitter.com/cFXwJ92wS2

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 24, 2016

 

The post Three questions for Nigel Farage appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The UK’s renegotiation of its EU membership concluded on Friday at the European Council in Brussels. The text of the settlement is contained in the Council conclusions. We also now know that the EU referendum will take place on Thursday 23 June 2016. Some comments on the renegotiation and referendum:

David Cameron EU Statement – Feb 2016, Georgina Coupe (Crown Copyright), CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0

1. This is an historic agreement. It is the first time that a Member State has unilaterally sought (and achieved) a renegotiation of its own terms of EU membership. This process has been entirely centred on the UK. In practice, however, many elements of the deal will impact the other Member States and the EU more generally. More to the point, how long before the next country seeks its own deal? The future of European integration, which inherently depends upon a high degree of policy harmony and/or unity, could be put into question in the months and years ahead.

2. The deal combines symbols and substance. Stating that the EU is a ‘multi-currency Union’, opting the UK out of ‘ever closer union’ and reiterating that states are responsible for its own national security are highly symbolic. The new ‘red card’ on subsidiarity for national parliaments is interesting, but it is unlikely to be used often. Parliaments would need to work together to exercise this right and, for different reasons, they may well not be interested in doing so. The restrictions on the free movement of workers (ie access to in-work benefits) represent a fundamental change in how the EU has functioned. The measures are relatively modest and unlikely to reduce the movement of EU citizens into the UK, which is ostensibly their objective. However, the precedent that non-discrimination on the basis of nationality can be made flexible in this way is a significant concession on the part of the other Member States.

3. Its impact on the campaign will be mixed. The content of the deal may not exert substantial influence on (undecided) voters. Most of it is technical and legalistic. The principles which the agreement is meant to amend are also not particularly well known amongst the UK public. However, that is not to say that the deal is unimportant. The fact of simply having a deal (whatever it contains) plays into the narrative that the EU has been ‘reformed’ and is therefore now more acceptable. Instrumentalisation of the deal could sway voters one way or the other.

4. The referendum date has broader implications. The decision by the UK government on the June date raises questions about the impact on the devolved institutions and local government. Devolved elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and local elections in England and Wales are scheduled for Thursday 5 May 2016. That leaves just under seven weeks (48 days) between the elections and the referendum. It is possible that the campaigns will become conflated with each other. The emergence of ‘Europe’ as a central issue in the May elections could also alter the dynamics of the respective campaigns. More broadly, the four months between the announcement of the date and the referendum is not a particularly long time to campaign (compared for instance to the Scotland independence referendum), although low-level campaigning and preparation have been ongoing for some time.

5. The vote won’t settle the UK’s relationship with the EU. The referendum is only one step in a wider process. If the UK votes to stay in the EU, the status quo of membership will continue, as modified by the changes provided for in the settlement. Arguments around EU membership will continue and opponents are likely to seek a second referendum in the future. If the UK votes to leave the EU, years-long discussions will take place to determine the new arrangements for UK-EU relations. This new relationship will presumably need to be legitimised in some way, perhaps through a vote in Parliament or even another referendum. In any case, the debate will continue, at varying intensities, for the foreseeable future. The next four months are likely to be particularly intense indeed.

Please read the comments policy before commenting.

Shortened link: britainseurope.uk/19

How to cite this article:

Salamone, A (2016) ‘Five Comments on Britain’s EU Settlement’, Britain’s Europe (Ideas on Europe), 22 Feb 2016, britainseurope.uk/19

The post Five Comments on Britain’s EU Settlement appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The mayor of one of the world’s most pro EU capital cities has announced that he wants Britain to leave the European Union.

Boris Johnson, MP and London’s Mayor, made his announcement after apparently agonising over the decision for hours and following the pleas of Prime Minister, David Cameron, for him not to abandon the government’s position for Britain to remain in the EU.

Boris’s view is apparently clear: in the event of Britain leaving the EU, he will be in ‘pole position’ to see-off David Cameron and rival, Chancellor George Osborne, and grab his long coveted job of Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

From his comments today, it seems that his strategy on a ‘Leave’ victory in the referendum would then be to negotiate a new and ‘better’ deal with the European Union.

My view? It’s an enormous gamble by Mr Johnson and one he may live to regret for the rest of his life.

Over the next four months, Britain and Britons are going to be exposed for the first time to fuller facts about the European Union, and all the hype and misinformation that we’ve been fed for years will be robustly challenged and corrected.

The country will go from blissful ignorance about the functioning and benefits of the European Union, to becoming global experts.

We’ve seen from past referenda campaigns in other European countries that such increased knowledge usually results in the populace becoming much more in favour of EU membership.

The bookies currently foresee a referendum victory for Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU – and unlike pollsters, bookmakers are more usually accurate at predictions.

It seems Boris has backed the wrong side. No doubt he’ll be able to brush that off with his usual bluster and buffoonery when the referendum results are announced on 24 June that Britain has voted to ‘Remain’ in the EU.

But just say Britain votes to ‘Leave’ the EU, and Boris cycles over to 10 Downing Street to take up his new position as Prime Minister. If he then tries to negotiate a ‘new deal’ with the EU, he will almost certainly be sent back home with a severe haircut.

Contrary to the view of Brexiters, EU leaders are not so desperate to keep Britain in the European club, otherwise they would have given Mr Cameron everything he demanded. They didn’t.

The foundational principles of the EU are much more important than the vexatious demands of one recalcitrant EU member, let alone an ex-member.

And if Britain leaves the European Union, what will happen to our Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Almost certainly, Scotland would immediately demand a referendum to leave the United Kingdom and apply to join the European Union as an independent state. It’s quite possible that Wales and Northern Ireland, which are both much more pro-EU than England, could follow.

Then Boris would be Prime Minister only of Little England. Yes, he might ‘get his country back’, but it could be only one country out of four. He’d be ‘king’ of a much smaller castle; no longer an island state and leading EU member, but surrounded and sandwiched by EU member-states over which he’d have no say or influence.

So the referendum exercise – if ‘Leave’ wins as Boris Johnson hopes – could result in not ‘getting our country back’ but instead losing our United Kingdom of countries.

The European Union would still exist, without England, but possibly with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as EU members.

Such a scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility. Boris could become leader of a country – and a Tory party – literally cut in half.

Boris has blundered. He should have shown loyalty to his Prime Minister and backed the ‘Remain’ campaign, in the unselfish interests of his party, the countries of the United Kingdom, and the capital city which he represents as Mayor.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• Proud to be British and European
• A reminder: What has the EU done for us?
• EU migrants are NOT ‘bleeding dry the NHS’
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read: ‘Debate, don’t hate’

• Share and join the discussions about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

 

The @MayorofLondon @BorisJohnson has made a big mistake backing #LeaveEU. My blog explains: https://t.co/YVEAglDwqc pic.twitter.com/EqnnMeVcHy

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 22, 2016

 

#EUReferendum: Boris’s big blunder – does he wants #UK to #LeaveEU so he can lead UK? Blog: https://t.co/KyALcBqgXU pic.twitter.com/l9RFCs6y2k

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 22, 2016

The post Boris Johnson’s big blunder appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

• The new InFacts website, putting right incorrect ‘facts’ about the European Union

It’s often said that truth is the first casualty of war, and it seems that’s also the case with the way the EU referendum is going so far.

Facts, stats and data are flying about all over the place from all sides, and it’s not surprising that many people are confused.

This morning, for example, over a communal hotel breakfast, friends and colleagues claimed, “The EU isn’t democratic!” and “The EU accounts have never been signed-off!” and “EU migrants only come here for the benefits!”

All these statements are untrue, but when trying to challenge them, the incredulous reply is often, “I don’t believe you!”

Well, of course, as an independent journalist I have been trying my best to post factual articles to counter the mistruths about Britain’s membership of the EU. But with few resources and working on my own, there is a limit to what I can achieve.

Now, however, a new website has launched that I can highly recommend. It’s called InFacts.org and it’s doing a sterling service in combating some of the blatantly incorrect information being published and broadcast about the European Union.

It has, for example, a section called ‘Sin Bin’ where every day it takes to task statements proclaimed by newspapers and politicians that are provably wrong.

Hopefully this will be helpful to all those who, like me, support Britain’s continued membership of the EU, and need ready-facts at the breakfast or dinner table when discussing with friends and family whether Britain should stay in the EU.

And it seems that, in the lead-up to the EU referendum, such meal-time, pub-time and work-time discussions are going to become more and more prevalent and likely quite heated too.

• In the latest edition of Infact’s ‘Sin Bin’, The Independent is taken to task for falsely reporting that, since 2010, one-third of new jobs were taken by foreigners. 
• Tory MEP and ardent Eurosceptic, Daniel Hannan, is challenged for wrongly stating that the EU only has trade-deals with two Commonwealth countries. 
• Vote.Leave boss, Matthew Elliot, is pulled up for erroneously claiming that the UK sends almost £20 billion a year to the EU. 
• And Margaret Thatcher’s former Press Secretary, Bernard Ingham, is ‘sin binned’ for wrongly claiming that the EU accounts haven’t been signed off for ‘nigh on 20 years.’

For these and other ready-facts and challenges on why ‘Britain should stay in the EU’, take a look at the new ‘In Facts’ website at www.infacts.org

Does the fact that I am promoting ‘In Facts’ make me biased as a journalist? Yes, it does.

I am openly pro-EU and happy to declare that as ‘an interest’. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t also have a healthy respect for the truth. As I have often written, I accept the truth, and don’t argue with it, whether I like it or not.

After all, my reputation as a journalist of many years standing is based on being a truthful and honest reporter of facts.

So, if the Leave campaign do come up with better information and verifiable evidence that Britain should end its membership of the EU, then yes, my mind is open to change. So far, however, they haven’t managed to persuade me.

Sure, there is a lot wrong with the EU. However, my view is that the EU isn’t bad enough, and the alternatives aren’t good enough, for Britain to leave. So, consequently, I intend to vote for Britain to ‘Remain’ in the EU.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• A reminder: What has the EU done for us?
• EU migrants are NOT ‘bleeding dry the NHS’
• What Nigel Farage told British expats in Spain
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read: ‘Debate, don’t hate’

• Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

 

#Truth is 1st first casualty of #EUReferendum Good we have @InFactsOrg Read my intro: https://t.co/QQaxdVjtRc pic.twitter.com/gKQeQlZZc7

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 20, 2016

 

The post Facing facts about the EU referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The publication of the UK’s draft EU settlement marks another milestone in the refashioning of its relationship with the EU. The proposals – which remain to be agreed in the European Council and thus could change – are noteworthy for their comprehensive and exacting nature. They represent a new mode of engagement between a Member State and the EU.

As I have written previously, this is the first time a Member State has unilaterally sought a renegotiation of its own terms of membership. This draft deal is not a means of accommodating a country trying to ratify an EU treaty (like Denmark with Maastricht or Ireland with Lisbon). Nor is it inherently in response to a particular policy change at European level. It is the product of national politics and the implementation of a manifesto pledge.

The ramifications for the EU of this unilateral approach remain unclear. How long before the novelty wears off and other countries seek their own individual settlements? Some will suggest that such a prospect is unlikely and that the UK is a special case. However, other Member States have opt-outs, protocols and reservations in their favour – having opt-outs does not in itself make a Member State unique.

It is true that the likelihood of another state (particularly a less influential one) succeeding in winning its own EU settlement is marginal. Nevertheless, the argument could be made, and refusal to accept it might damage the EU’s legitimacy. More to the point, how could Britain seriously stand in the way of another country following in its footsteps?

The draft deal would make a number of substantive changes to the EU’s architecture. If agreed, the potential qualifications of the free movement of workers would be ground-breaking. Over time, the implications of such a move could certainly be wider than the drafters ever intended.

Other measures are important but less radical, such ‘taking account’ of opposition by national parliaments to EU legislative proposals on grounds of subsidiarity. Agreement to eventually attach a protocol to the EU treaties clarifying that ‘ever closer union’ does not equate to obligatory political integration for the UK is less substantive.

Regardless of the meaning of creating ‘an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’, the UK would have always had a say in any treaty change, and if it did not want to take part a significant new EU initiative, it would surely have received an opt-out, as it has always had before.

More importantly, the eventual settlement will carry a strong symbolic value. It attempts to codify the UK’s EU membership, listing all the opt-outs it already holds, such as on Economic and Monetary Union, the Schengen acquis and parts of police and judicial cooperation. It singles out specific elements of one country’s relationship with the EU – a sort of bespoke terms and conditions of membership. This kind of agreement runs counter to how the EU has always worked before.

Moreover, such differentiation would set the UK apart from the other Member States. The UK will not help Eurozone countries in financial crisis (who presumably will not be lining up to help the UK if it ever needed it). It will not treat EU workers equally under certain circumstances. In short, it will not participate in much of what the EU is meant to be about.

This arrangement would likely sap much of the goodwill from the UK’s EU membership. It is understood, and accepted, that the UK will not partake in particular elements of European integration. However, coldly stating the fact, codifying it and adding on to it are unlikely to endear Britain to the rest of the EU. It moves in the direction of reducing the UK’s membership to a transactional relationship between it and the other EU Member States.

The EU has always been about more than transactions, even for countries largely averse to political integration. Presuming the deal is agreed, it will have broader implications for the UK’s place in the EU. It has the potential to generate sizeable ill-will from the other Member States, which will have compromised much for the UK. It could also damage the UK’s long-term influence in the EU. If countries perceive the UK as semi-detached from the Union, they may not take it and its views as seriously as they would have otherwise.

All of this is of course predicated on the settlement being agreed and the UK subsequently voting to remain in the EU. Should Britain instead vote to leave, it will perhaps not be off to the best start in the withdrawal negotiations, having just wasted the other Member States’ time in reaching a now void settlement that concedes much of what is important to them about the EU.

This article was originally published (under a different title) on the LSE BrexitVote Blog.

Please read the comments policy before commenting.

Shortened link: britainseurope.uk

How to cite this article:

Salamone, A (2016) ‘Britain’s New Settlement Could Remove the Goodwill from its EU Membership’, Britain’s Europe (Ideas on Europe), 17 Feb 2016, britainseurope.uk

The post Britain’s New Settlement Could Remove the Goodwill from its EU Membership appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

According to an article published in the Rheinische Post on 2nd January 2016, the motor manufacturer Daimler reported that it had built 180,000 Sprinter vans in 2015 – 5000 more vehicles built than in the previous year – at the company’s manufacturing plant at Derendorf in Düsseldorf. The boom in sales of Daimler’s Sprinter van is the result of an increasing demand for parcel and package delivery services, driven by the expanding market of online retailers such as Amazon and Zalando.

However, this increase in productivity and sales has not led to greater job security for the workers at the Düsseldorf factory. The management of Daimler has decided to build a new Sprinter factory at Charlestown, South Carolina in the USA, which will produce Sprinter vans for the United States, Canadian, and Mexican markets. Up until now the company’s factory in Germany has been manufacturing vans which have been exported to North America. The result of the Daimler’s new manufacturing plant in the United States will be the redundancy of 650 workers out of a workfore of 6500 at the factory in Düsseldorf.

Daimler seems to have been distracted by the short term boom in logistics services both in Europe and North America, without considering the long term sustainability of its business model. Once a delivery company buys a new van, it has that van for use for perhaps five or more years. So demand will suddenly drop once the market is saturated. A thriving logistics industry could also be threatened by another recession. At the moment Germany’s economy appears to be in a strong position, but that could change if more jobs are lost in traditional industries. The online retail industry depends upon the wages of customers, who work in companies like Daimler, to buy the products that are delivered to the customers’ homes.

The price of crude oil may be very low at the moment, but as more consumers in the world feel the effects of climate change, then there will be grater demand for vehicles driven by cleaner fuels. Daimler is already committed to the transition from fossil fuels to other fuels such as hydrogen produced from renewable forms of energy. The company is a partner in the Hydrogen Mobility Europe (H2ME) project, which aims to expand the network of hydrogen refuelling stations across Europe, and at the same time increase hydrogen-fuelled transport. In five years time, when the Sprinter vans with diesel engines made during the boom year of 2015 come to be replaced, then all of the vans manufactured by Daimler at the Düsseldorf factory should be hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Instead of making 650 workers redundant at the factory in Germany, Daimler should retrain and redeploy these workers along with the rest of the workforce at the factory to build the new vans with hydrogen fuel cells.

Sources

Breitkopf, Thorsten (02.01.2016) ‘Daimler meldet 180.000 Sprinter gebaut’, Rheinische Post.

http://www.itm-power.com/news-item/hydrogen-mobility-europe-launched-with-e32m-funding

©Jolyon Gumbrell 2016

The post How can Daimler’s delivery van boom be made sustainable? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

“There will never be a good a solid constitution unless the law reigns over the hearts of the citizens; as long as the power of legislation is insufficient to accomplish this, laws will always be evaded“  Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1772).

You can have the best political institutions in the world but if the people who live within them do not want to use them properly, then those institutions will not work.  The challenge is to make people want to use common institutions properly and to agree on what constitutes proper use.  This is the challenge that Jean-Jacques Rousseau tackled in his “considerations on the government of Poland and on its proposed reformation.”  It is the same challenge advanced industrial democracies face today — at all levels of government.  Moreover, better institutions or ‘structural reforms’ were not the answer for Rousseau and they are not the answer now: “Although it is easy, if you wish, to make better laws, it is impossible to make them such that the passions of men will not abuse them as they abused the laws that preceded them.”

When I listen to politicians like Wolfgang Schäuble or Jeroen Dijsselbloem talk about ‘moral hazard’ and the need for everyone to ‘follow the rules,’ I can see immediately that they have not understood the problem that people have to believe in the rules first.  And when I hear about politicians like the late Helmut Schmidt deriding the need for ‘vision’ saying things like “people who have visions should see a doctor,” then I know we are in trouble.  People have to want to follow rules or they will find a way around them.  People only want to follow rules if they believe those rules are fair and just; they also have to believe that following the rules is useful.  Moreover, ‘following the rules’ restricts freedom and requires discipline. This means that people have to have some justification for collective action and common sacrifice.

When you add this all up – fairness, justice, effectiveness, purpose – you come up with a pretty complicated set of ideas that people need to receive and accept if they are to make institutions function.  Maybe ‘vision’ is not the most appropriate metaphor to describe this requirement to explain why politics works the way it does, particularly in a democratic system.  ‘Ideology’ is probably even more uncomfortable in the modern vernacular.  But whatever we call it, we need to come up with some way to get people to believe they are all part of a bigger project.  Democracy without solidarity does not work.

The examples of democracy suffering from a lack of solidarity are all around us.  As someone who spent a long time studying Belgian politics, my first instinct is to point to the 550 days that the New Flemish Alliance complicated efforts by the country’s elites to form a government.  That crisis only ended when the pressure in government bond markets was intense enough to focus attention on the very bad things that would happen if events spiralled out of control.  The debate that took place in the United States Congress over the debt ceiling during the summer of 2011 is another illustration.  But as we look more deeply into the functioning of the two Houses of Congress over the past few years, it is easy to see that the debt ceiling debate is just the tip of the iceberg. As Thomas Mann and Norman Orenstein describe it, the U.S. political system is “even worse than it looks.”

The Belgian and U.S. examples show two aspects of the pattern.  One is the argument about legitimacy.  This is where politicians or protestors claim that the current arrangement is unfair, unjust, ineffective, or headed in the wrong direction.  Here you can think of just about any stump speech by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, or Beppe Grillo.  Clearly these speeches resonate with some part of the electorate.  Depending upon the country, you can usually mobilize between 15 and 25 percent of the vote around the general message of disenchantment; in some cases the appeal is even broader.

The second aspect is how the message translates into action. This is the part I try to capture with ‘solidarity’ (and its absence).  When solidarity weakens or diminishes, people start breaking rules or reinterpreting them in ways that exaggerate the worst features of any institutional  arrangement.  They begin using exclusive (or offensive) speech patterns which they justify as a break from the confines of ‘political correctness.’  They start dividing the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’.  And they find ways to hold the functioning of institutions hostage until their specific concerns are addressed.  Such actions are standard practice for Beppe Grillo’s ‘Five Star Movement’ but they are also what brought Ted Cruz such notoriety when he entered the U.S. Senate (following Nigel Farage’s playbook from the European Parliament).

Unfortunately, democratic institutions are not very good at channelling or constraining this kind of disruptive behaviour.  On contrary, democracy thrives in a context where speech is free and institutions operate under ‘checks and balances’.  This is the perfect environment for a loss of solidarity to spark a crisis of governance and yet we risk losing the essence of democracy whenever we try to use new rules to proscribe such unruly behaviour.  It is a delicate and difficult balance — as you can see by looking at countries like Hungary, Poland and Turkey.

The balance is even harder to find when you look at federal countries or multinational arrangements.  It is no accident that the two easiest examples of the problem we face (Belgium and the United States) are both federal countries.  But the implications for the European Union are even more dramatic.  In the end, I do not see a scenario where the United States collapses into a collection of smaller political units.  Even Belgium is showing significant resilience and the New Flemish Alliance is participating in the federal government without demanding further devolution of power to Flanders (for now).

By contrast, the European Union is facing an existential crisis.  The knee-jerk European response is always more rules, better enforcement, and structural reform.  These are good responses in many situations.  Unfortunately, this is not one of them.  Too many Europeans do not believe that the rules are just or fair, they do not understand the need for collective sacrifice (or that the sacrifice is truly ‘collective’), and they do not think the solutions being offered are going to be effective.  You can see this in debates about macroeconomic policy, financial regulation, migration, and the single market.  You can see this in the language that is being used to divide Europe into north and south, east and West, creditor and debtor.  And you can see that both protest groups (including anti-European parties) and national governments are starting to use the institutions of Europe to jam up the process of governance until they get what they want for themselves.

Europe as a whole is not a democracy but it shares many democratic strengths and weaknesses.  Free speech, freedom of assembly, and institutional checks and balances are at the top of both lists.  The collapse of solidarity in Europe is threatening to break the union into pieces.  If Europe’s politicians don’t start focusing their attention on coming up with an argument to explain how Europeans are all in this together, why they need to work with one-another, and where this great project is going, then they will have to live with the consequences of their inaction.  This is what David Cameron promised when he raised the whole prospect of a national debate on Europe in his Bloomberg speech.  Unfortunately, that conversation has deteriorated into a debate about details rather than focusing on the big picture.  National politicians need to tell the big story about Europe if they are to capture ‘the hearts of the citizens,’ in Rousseau’s turn of phrase.  Whether we call that a ‘vision’, an ‘ideal’, or an ‘ideology’ is less important than winning the argument about Europe’s importance.  The same is true for democracy itself.

First published on February 13, 2016 at Prof. Erik Jones’ Personal Webpage.

The post Democracy without Solidarity appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

• Fairy-tales about Britain leaving the EU?

On last week’s BBC Question Time UKIP’s deputy leader, Paul Nuttall, presented a fantasy vision of Britain outside the European Union.

It was supposed to be his leader, Nigel Farage, to appear once again on the weekly discussion show, but apparently he got stuck in traffic (no doubt he’ll blame that on foreigners, or foreign cars, or an EU directive, or something).

So, last week it was his deputy, Paul Nuttall, who appeared on Question Time instead.

(But last night, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was on Question Time – that means that UKIP’s leader and deputy leader have been on the programme two weeks in a row. Doesn’t that seem disproportionate?)

I want to pick up on four comments Mr Nuttall, a Member of the European Parliament, said in answers to questions from the audience last week.

When someone asked him, “What will happen to the EU migrants already living in Britain if we leave the EU?” he replied:

“People who are already here will not be asked to leave. We have a heart!”

Well, UKIP may have a heart, but the thing is, they’re not in charge.

Pre or post Brexit, they will still only have one Member of Parliament. Hardly enough to form a government, let alone to dictate what will happen if Britain leaves the EU.

The former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, commented last year that if Britain leaves the EU, around two million Britons living in the rest of Europe would become “illegal immigrants overnight”.

And in today’s Telegraph, Alex Taylor, a Briton living in France, wrote that, “If Britain does withdraw from the EU, two million of us will be stranded and no longer have equal rights as the citizens of the countries we live in – overnight” (See: Expats are being frozen out on Europe)

The fact is that nobody can really say, let alone promise, what will happen with the EU migrants living in Britain, and the British migrants living in the rest of the EU, if Brexit should happen.

No EU member state has ever before left the EU, so it would be uncharted territory.

On ‘Question Time’ Mr Nuttall spoke as if his party would have a say in Britain’s Brexit terms if the referendum resulted in Britain’s departure from the European Union.

But actually, he is in no position to promise anything.

Mr Nuttall also told the Question Time audience in Bradford:

“Peace was kept by NATO, not the European Union.”

For sure NATO has helped to keep the peace from external threats. But peace among and between European nations came about primarily because of the European Union.

Above all economic considerations, no countries during their membership of the European Union have warred with one another; we’ve found peace. That’s quite an achievement, I believe, when one considers that the planet’s only, and hopefully last, two world wars originated right here, in Europe.

Winston Churchill, who is recognised as one of the founders of the European Union, passionately promoted the idea of a Union of the states of Europe as the antidote to war.

Furthermore, not all EU member states are even members of NATO.

Commented EU law expert, Professor Steve Peers, “The founders of the EU, when they signed the original Coal and Steel Community Treaty, said explicitly that their aim was to develop the EU in order to avoid wars between them.

“The USA has always supported the EU from the outset, as a parallel body to NATO, realising that both organisations contributed to securing peace between EU nations.”

Mr Nuttall also claimed:

“The simple fact of the matter is you don’t have to be a member of the EU to have access to the Single Market…”

Well, of course, countries throughout the world trade with the European Union. The EU is the world’s biggest exporter, and the world’s biggest importer, of manufactured goods and services.

But having full and complete free access to the lucrative internal market of the European Union – the world’s richest, biggest, most successful trading block – that’s a rather different matter.

The EU is Britain’s single most important export market – that’s unlikely to change if Britain exits the EU. However, as a member of the EU, we have free access to the single internal market of Europe. That, according to many economists, is worth considerably more than our annual EU membership fee.

It’s true that non-EU member, Norway (often referred to as ‘the Norway model’), has free access to the internal market of the EU, but in exchange, they have to make an annual contribution to the EU, and they have to accept all the rules of the Single Market.

And yet they have no voting rights and very little say in those rules.

Commented Professor Steve Peers this evening, “The EU has indeed been willing to let non-EU States sign up to the internal market, but in the form of the EEA treaty, which includes obligations to contribute to EU programmes, to apply many EU laws without having a say, and to accept the free movement of people, which UKIP dislikes.

“But UKIP’s manifesto says that they oppose the EEA – so how exactly do they think the EU will agree to internal market access without those conditions?”

Finally, Mr Nuttall claimed:

“We can have a bespoke UK deal with the European Union, we have a huge trading deficit, they need us more than we need them.”

It’s a rather arrogant stance. After all, why would the other 27 members of the EU allow Britain to enjoy membership benefits without having to pay the EU annual membership fee, or agreeing to the rules of the Single Market?

If that was to be permitted, the European Union may as well close shop tomorrow – and we all know that’s not going to happen.

I have membership to a local gym, but I think it’s highly unlikely that they would let me continue attending if I stopped paying the monthly fee. Why should it be any different with the EU?

Of the 28 EU members, only Britain is considering leaving. The other members obviously consider that the cost of EU membership is modest compared to the huge advantages. In other words, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Also, if the other members of the European Union were so keen to keep us onside, why are they not agreeing to all of UK Prime Minister, David Cameron’s, reform agenda?

Commented Professor Peers, “Critics of the EU say that it has offered us a poor renegotiation deal. If the EU were so desperate to retain trade with Britain, why wouldn’t it have offered us a fantastic deal to stay in the EU, and retain all that trade the easy way?

“The Leave side assumes that the EU will be mean to us as long as we’re members, but nice to us as soon as we leave. That’s just not plausible.”

He added, “The EU might well be willing to do a bespoke deal with the UK in the interests of trade, but it’s unrealistic to imagine that it will be anything like the fantasy deal which UKIP imagines: with full internal market access, no financial contribution, veto of all relevant EU legislation, and no free movement of people.

“The UK will likely have to give up on at least one and probably more of those objectives. And the obvious questions are: why would the EU agree to a deal so generous that it would encourage other countries to leave?”

In summary, UKIP seems to have a fantasy, fairy-tale vision of the deal that might be available to Britain if we vote to leave the European Union. But the most important point is that, whatever UKIP might wish or hope for, they don’t have any power to deliver.

In my view, leaving the EU would be a walk into the dark. The ‘Leavers’ can’t agree on what deal might be available if we left. Even if they could agree, they can promise anything they like, but they can’t implement.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• What does Brexit look like? Nobody knows
• Wrong answers on Question Time
• What Nigel Farage told British expats in Spain
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read ‘The rules of engagement’ 

• Share and join the discussion about this article on Facebook and Twitter:

#UKIP’s fantasy island vision of #Britain after #Brexit that it can’t deliver #BBCQT Blog: https://t.co/u8Su16UwPw pic.twitter.com/nrEhtBXdcM

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 12, 2016

My blog debunks #UKIP’s #fantasy vision of #Britain after #Brexit. Please share: https://t.co/MJJFQ1uu5t pic.twitter.com/PjM3NsGVkp

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 13, 2016

The post UKIP’s fantasy island appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

• The question they can’t answer: What does ‘leave’ mean?

Here’s a question for you. Would you move home without knowing what your next home looks like? No, me neither.

But that’s what those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU are expecting you to do – vote to end our membership of the EU without knowing what we’d have instead.

The problem LEAVERS have is that they simply don’t know, and for sure they can’t agree.

As a result, two rival, irreconcilable ‘leave’ campaigns have been launched. UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, supports one (Leave.EU) and UKIP’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, supports the other (Vote Leave).

(*Update: and now there is yet another ‘Leave’ campaign called Grass Roots Out – more proof that the ‘Leavers’ cannot agree on their vision(s) of Britain after Brexit)

And as confirmed by the Financial Times, the ‘leave’ campaigns are in disarray.

On the one hand, Mr Farage wants to curtail immigration and stop EU migrants coming to Britain. On the other, Mr Carswell wants to promote a Singapore-style model for Britain, open to capital and migration.

Instead of Britain leaving the EU, these two prominent members of UKIP seem to be putting the case for leaving each other.

Or as the Financial Times put it this weekend;

“It is not just a matter of discordant personalities. Out campaigners have struggled to unite around a single vision of what Britain’s post-Brexit trading arrangements would look like.”

And this is the core problem for the LEAVERS – their Achilles heel. Explained the FT:

“They have also failed to provide a convincing explanation of how leaving the EU would give the British greater control over their destiny and improved economic prospects. This is not surprising because none of the models that is mooted for a future outside the EU is convincing.”

Some Eurosceptics are proposing the same model for Britain as Norway – but to participate in the EU internal market, Norway has to agree to EU rules, without any say in them.

Another option favoured by some Eurosceptics is for Britain to strike trade deals on a country-by-country basis. But, as the FT points out, that would mean British businesses having to pay higher tariffs to trade internationally.

As the Financial Times asserted:

“When it comes to these models – and others – the problem is that Britain moves from being a rule-maker to rule-taker.”

If Eurosceptics can’t even agree among themselves what it would mean for Britain to leave the European Union, it seems a bit rich to expect that voters will know. They don’t know, because the LEAVERS don’t know.

On this basis, I can’t recommend anyone to vote to leave. Our membership of the EU is not that bad; and the options for leaving (whichever one you might choose) are not that good.

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• My vote for Europe
  
• The end of free movement to and from Europe?
• Wrong answers on Question Time
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

• Comments are welcome – but please read ‘The rules of engagement’ 

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

What does #Brexit look like? Nobody knows. Please share my blog today: https://t.co/MxkurNP5xP pic.twitter.com/BfSqEQLjPV

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) February 7, 2016

 

The post What does Brexit look like? Nobody knows appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This post was first published in NBXMain in October 2015

Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are international crimes and, since 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can investigate individuals accused of having committed acts of that nature. From 2017, under certain circumstances the ICC will also have jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. These are the four international crimes recognised in the Statute of the ICC. There was a time, however, when scholars, international bodies and even some government officials spoke about a possible fifth international crime: Ecocide.

Ecocide was a crazy idea promoted by a bunch of visionary/loony academics of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Aware of the fact that human action was causing irreparable damage to the ecosystem, they argued that humanity as a whole could be considered to be the victim of premeditated forms of aggression against the environment.

The idea could have remained an exercise of academic engineering had it not resonated, even if mildly, in international political discourse. Most famously, the then Prime Minister of Sweden, Olaf Palme, said in his opening address of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Environment:

”The immense destruction brought about by indiscriminate bombing, by large scale use of bulldozers and herbicides is an outrage sometimes described as ecocide, which requires urgent international attention.” 

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the 1970s, the environment became part of the ongoing conversations held at the International Law Commission (ILC) in relation to the Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind. Yet, mysteriously ecocide was dropped from the agenda in the mid-1990s (find out more details here).

It cannot be by chance that this happened precisely when deliberations on the Statute of the ICC were coming to an end (they were completed in 1998). States were only willing to let the ILC play with the notion of ecocide to the extent that enforceability remained weak. Governments were not ready to eliminate safe havens and to let independent bodies judge individuals for the commission of crimes against the environment.

As it stands now, international law sanctions the intentional damage of the environment in wartime situations, and trans-boundary ecological damage can be a source of state responsibility. However, partly due to its blurry definition but especially because of the lack of support from key international actors (mostly Western European states), ecocide never got to the point of development of the prohibition of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Ecocide disappeared from the policy and legal agenda nearly two decades ago. For now, it still is the international crime that could have been but never quite was.

In recent years, there have been attempts to resuscitate ecocide under new frames, connected to indigenous struggles and climate change. Time will tell if, as a normative project, ecocide performs better in this second life. However, considering the failure of the first attempt, and the growing mistrust on the ICC and international justice in general, one must remain cautious. Unless sudden changes revolutionise international politics, the Earth will remain unprotected in international criminal law in the foreseeable future.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Koldo Casla

@koldo_casla

The post Ecocide: the international crime that could have been but never quite was appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

In the three years since its foundation, the Green Investment Bank (GIB) has made waves in the green investment scene in the United Kingdom (UK). But rather than resting on its laurels the UK government needs to realise the work of GIB has not gone far enough, that the level of green investment in the UK is still woefully low, and that the state still needs to play a role in green finance.  

In August 2014 I wrote a piece for this blog on the GIB. Established and owned by the UK government, GIB was then the fresh-faced poster child of environmental finance in Britain. The Bank was a bold experiment, set-up to demonstrate the financial viability of green investment.

Already GIB has become an established, successful feature of the green finance scene in the UK. Because of the Bank’s success, a month after the May 2015 election, the new Conservative government announced its decision to sell a majority stake of GIB. For the Conservatives this sale is a natural continuation of the Bank’s commercial model; as the GIB has been shown to work as a model for green investment it now has to go a stage further and prove that it can operate “free from the shackles of state ownership”, to quote Savid Javid, the Minister who announced the sale.

The decision to privatise part of GIB has caused a furore in political and environmental circles (though fears about the future of GIB seem overstated, it is likely to continue to play a solely environmental role). However, with government funding commitments to GIB due to expire in March, the sale seems imminent and unavoidable. Rather than fighting over the ownership of one bank, it is better to focus on the attitudinal influence that the Bank has had. Has GIB really had the ‘demonstration effect’ impact that it was intended to? Have other investors looked to the example set by GIB in the last few years and moved into the field of green investment? Will the UK reach its £200bn green investment target by 2020 (the low end of the £220 – 330 billion needed for a green transition over this decade)? The answers to these questions are important to understanding what should follow the inevitable sale of GIB.

Undoubtedly, GIB has done great work in the brief period since its launch. Through committing £2.1bn in its capital it has contributed to 62 UK green economy projects worth £10.1bn. At a near 1:5 ratio of leveraging private capital and with a 10% projected return on investments, GIB has shown it’s ability to act effectively and demonstrated the potential for green investment.

When I wrote on GIB previously, the Bank was the most active investor in the UK green economy. Upon the publication of their latest financial report this was a position that they still held. Yet GIB alone is not doing enough to reach the investment levels thought necessary to build the green economy. Even under private ownership, GIB’s long-term strategy is to have an investment run-rate of £800m to £1bn a year. Therefore, there will be no astronomical boom in GIB investment levels after privatisation.

GIB recognises that ‘Investment levels in the UK’s green economy remain well below what’s required’. With waves of government green subsidy cuts it seems that little is being done to help promote any increase in those investment levels. Tellingly, the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry spoke out against the government’s record in September of last year saying, “Today’s investors are more uncertain about the UK’s low-carbon future. From the roll-back of renewables to the mixed messages on energy efficiency these changes send a worrying signal about the UK as a place for low-carbon investment”.

That there isn’t another institution rising to threaten the supremacy of GIB shows that to-date the rewards of the bank’s demonstrative mission have yet to be reaped. Other UK investors in the same field don’t have anywhere near the level of capital needed to get the UK closer to the £200bn target. Organisations like the Foresight Group and Oxford Capital Partners, to give just two examples, manage investment portfolios that run into the low hundreds of millions. These are hardly competitors for GIB with its annual running-rate of near £1bn.

The tone of Ministers’ public statements on GIB has been of a ‘good-job, well-done’ nature. There is no recognition that while GIB has in itself been a success it is has barely raised 5% of the 2020 green investment target. Currently, even the conservative £200bn green finance target appears near astronomical. Much more needs to be being done to promote green investment in the UK. Current debates over the sale of one bank seem to be little more than a distraction.

A solution to the current lacklustre situation may well be right before us, albeit one that is unlikely to appeal to more ideological Conservatives. Javid stated in his GIB sale speech that the Bank was a model for “a government successfully involving itself in the markets”. Perhaps the government should follow on from this success, after the sale of GIB, with the creation of second bank for green investment – GIB 2.0. This could introduce a healthy dose of competition for GIB, further demonstrate the sustainability of green investments, and bring the UK that bit closer to its £200bn goal by 2020. Meanwhile the original GIB, privately managed and owned, would continue to demonstrate the viability of green investment.

There is much that can be learnt from the UK government’s first venture into green investment banking. There are notable market gaps at present (though it would unfair to put the blame for these solely on the shoulders of GIB) that a GIB 2.0 could help correct. The unfortunate demise of the Green Deal leading to a serious lack of national energy efficiency efforts is one such case. There are also plenty of other examples of state-supported green finance that lessons can be learnt from. Germany’s state-owned KfW bank, which partly funds sustainability projects through the sale of green bonds, could offer one model under which GIB 2.0 could operate (capital sourcing is an issue which has hindered the GIB since its inception).

Unfortunately, this is an idea that is unlikely to see the light of serious consideration. Fears of the “shackles of state ownership” and of raising the deficit could easily trump green investment shortcomings. Whatever comes next though, the UK government needs to recognise that after the sale of GIB it can’t wash its hands of green investment. Like it or not, the state still has an important role to play in the abatement of climate change and the financing that is needed to achieve this goal.

The post Green Investment Bank 2.0? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Threatening to leave a club is often a balancing act. Push the other members too hard and you may face a brick wall; push too little and the exercise becomes useless. What’s more, to have any degree of success you need ambitious goals and a realistic strategy to achieve them. This is more or less the situation David Cameron is in, as he wields his threat of pulling Britain out of the European Union. Alas, his goals are weak and his strategy is creaking.

The British Prime Minister outlined his conditions for staying in the EU in November 2015. Eagerly awaited both in and outside Britain, the shopping list proved disappointing when unveiled.

Michael D Beckwith / Flickr Creative Commons

Cutting benefits for EU migrants coming to Britain and a symbolic request for exemption from the idea of ‘ever closer union’ were among the conditions laid down. But they are hardly the big issues that affect people’s daily lives. Threatening to pull the country out of a union which underpins the world’s largest economic market, unless these sorts of conditions are met, betrays some worrying thinking.

Of course, Mr Cameron doesn’t intend to exit the EU. The chances are he cares little about any damage to his reputation among other EU leaders. His real priority is stopping the haemorrhage of Tory Party members to the United Kingdom Independence Party, a right-wing party whose raison d’être is to get Britain to quit the EU.

What better way to outflank UKIP than to defeat it in a popular vote on its favourite territory: Europe.

But here too David Cameron is revealing some disturbingly poor strategy. He, like many in his party, is averse to the institutions in Brussels . He has spent his political career criticising the EU. When he eventually does start campaigning, voters will find it hard to believe him when he says Britain should stay in the EU. His messaging will certainly have a whiff of Jekyll and Hyde about it.

The situation on the ground is worrying, though not yet desperate. Polls today show a victory for those who want to leave the European Union. Much of the mainstream media supports a British withdrawal. Hysterical, partisan headlines like ‘Millions of jobless Bosnians could be headed for Britain as country applies to join EU’ are all too common [1]. The main political parties are still too divided. Labour and the Conservatives will not be backing one side or the other, instead allowing every Member of Parliament to campaign how he wishes.

Weakness plagues the other side too of course. Those campaigning for a ‘Brexit’, or British exit of the EU, are currently divided into two bickering groups (Vote Leave and Leave EU). But they are likely to merge sooner or later in outrage at Mr Cameron’s weak demands in his renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership. The Brexit campaign has so far been far more effective at rousing its supporters with emotional arguments.

The one sector that has been vocal is big business. They have most to lose from quitting the EU as their cheerleader, the UK government, would no longer be able to frustrate rules governing the single market. But messaging about falling turnovers and weaker job creation is hardly the stuff of campaign victories. We need stories about people.

This means Mr Cameron has to change course quickly if he wants to avoid hitting the iceberg.

He has little time in which to do this. This means he of all people needs to start campaigning passionately about the benefits of Britain in the EU. That also means getting those in his party to start being vocal. It means
ministers should be travelling up and down the country to spread a positive message.

It’s time to start using the things that Europe has given us, like the ERASMUS programme, cross-border travel or strong consumer rights. And to start using the things it can do for us, like more cooperation on research, migration or foreign policy. Where are the celebrities campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU? Another good starting point would be to inject some life into the online platform for the Stay In campaign.

The referendum is likely to take place in mid-2016. The British people deserve a real debate on what being part of the EU is about, not hear the usual stories about bureaucrats and bendy bananas. The EU isn’t perfect, but then nor is Westminster. Both Britain and the EU have too much to lose if they divorce. If Mr Cameron doesn’t start moving soon, the UK is at risk of sleepwalking towards Brexit.

[1] Daily Express, 27 January 2016.

The post Sleepwalking towards Brexit? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

When talking about Yemen, one of the most common phrases amongst analysts is that “it’s complicated.” True, to a very large extent. Tribal politics, new movements being infiltrated by old power political structures and when looking at the political actors involved, it becomes less clear how the conflict falls under the ‘Sunni-Shia’ divide that seems to be a top theme when discussing MENA politics. Yet the fact that Yemen is “complicated” does not mean there is no clear power political dynamic.

In a nutshell, if former president Ali Abdullah Saleh did not form an alliance with the Houthis, a group who he has fought six wars with since 2004, including one in 2009 where he requested Saudi support via area bombardment, they would not have been able to stage a coup on Sana’a in September 2014. Before Saleh stepped down, he warned that if he let go of power, Yemen “would turn into another Somalia,” indicating his vengeful intentions. By looking at Yemen today, not only is it clear that Saleh has taken his revenge on his own people for revolting against him, but also against the city that has suffered the most as a result of the Saleh/Houthi tactical alliance: Taiz – the birthplace of the 2011 revolution.

Taiz city, whose province is directly on the old North-South border is currently under a siege imposed by Saleh and Houthis forces. All roads that lead outside the city are blocked. Food prices have soared dramatically as it has become scarce due to the Houthis blocking aid and hospital have run out of medical supplies, including oxygen. The largest public hospital in Taiz, Al Thawra has been forced to close multiple times over the past year and it is only able to function if medical supplies are smuggled through the mountains. Those who do attempt to smuggle basic living needs into the city are usually caught by Houthi and Saleh forces and shot or kidnapped.

When looking at the logistics supporting anti-Houthi forces in Taiz, it is clear that power politics have to a large extent influenced the assistance of the resistance movement. Taiz is well known for being an Islahi (Muslim Brotherhood) stronghold, which despite being the perceived lesser evil in Yemen’s context still has unstable relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This has politicised the resistance movement because of a fear of what may come after the Houthis leave Taiz and how local successors would serve the security of their Arab allies. In some ways it looks as though the Arab coalition has learnt its lesson from its experience in Aden. After Aden province was liberated a security vacuum emerged, which gave enabled sporadic ISIS and Al Qaeda attacks. To ensure this mistake is not repeated in Taiz, there needs to be a guaranteed form of security for a post Houthi order. The main problem with this is that the more days go by, the more lives are lost as a result of daily shelling and the deadly siege. Moreover, there is some evidence for an alternative view that the lack of assistance to anti-Houthi forces in Taiz is because the UAE does not want to extend its military assistance to allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, however much the Saudis under King Salman are willing to ally with anyone against Iran.

Saleh needs to be beaten at all fronts

In light of these tensions within the Saudi-led coalition, what external powers need to do beyond defeating Saleh and Houthi militias militarily is to undermine them diplomatically and financially. While no party in the anti-Houthi movement recognises Saleh’s legitimacy, there are still ways to corner him. One of Saleh’s sons, Ahmed, is still living luxuriously in the UAE. Last April Riyadh even expressed suspicion towards Abu Dhabi’s intentions in Yemen, though this is unlikely to extend past the discontent of political officials in the foreseeable future because both are still in a formal military alliance. Saleh needs to be beaten at all fronts, not just militarily, because it is becoming clearer that as long as Saleh has the capability to destroy he will not surrender under any circumstances regardless of whether chaos will lead him to regaining power or not.

If a solution is not found, Europe will potentially face an influx of Yemeni refugees. Russia’s involvement has also become increasingly apparent, with Houthi and Saleh officials meeting with Russian ambassadors in Sana’a. As a consequence Yemen risks becoming another Middle Eastern political quagmire for EU policy. The policy mistake made in Syria must not be made in Yemen. With the growth of AQAP, terrorism remains a threat and EU policy should not look towards beating it through collusion with a former dictator who has perpetuated terrorism. A policy that aims for stability in Yemen should work in conjunction towards democracy and self-determination to ensure leaders who refuse to give up power do not have the tools to destroy all around them.

The post Why a military defeat of the Houthis is not enough for Yemen or Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Remember the spy novels of Cold War times? Where pretty much everybody was suspected of being a ‘mole’? The master storyteller of brilliant double agents was John Le Carré, and one of his very best novels was Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,  published in the spring of 1974, incidentally one month after Willy Brandt had resigned because he had an East German spy among his closest collaborators.

The more the Brexit referendum debate unravels, the more it reminds me of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, the title of which refers to the code names given to some of the suspects and borrowed from an old nursery rhyme (not that this is of any importance for this post). The parallel between the Cold War spy novels and the Brexit referendum campaign is the haunting question whether there is a double agent, seemingly pursuing a publicly proclaimed preferred outcome, but secretly aiming at provoking the exact opposite.

If the Brexit referendum was a TV series like Borgen or Deutschland 83, the best possible cast for the double agent would undoubtedly be David Cameron. He would actually be too good to be true. The most brilliant and efficient ‘moles’ always have the appearance of bland people, underestimated by everybody. They are unspectacular, not really stupid but not particularly bright either, sometimes clumsy, but almost touching in their awkwardness. They have cover stories that have been built over years, so patiently that they have become entirely credible, so convincing, so obvious. If I had to write the scenario of this TV fiction I would therefore lay great emphasis on the perfect fake identity for my double agent.

The cover story would go like this:

Here is a rather average politician who has been put by circumstance in the position to lead the country. From the beginning it has been ‘evident’ that he was not madly in love with the European Union, but had come to the pragmatic conviction that EU membership was on the whole a better option for Britain than splendid isolation.

Then, the scenario would unfold like this:

Unfortunately, to his sincere regret, he has to put up with a bunch of obnoxious backbenchers and an aggressive, populist alliance of Eurosceptics and xenophobes that forces him – against his will! – to commit to holding a referendum about EU membership. There’s no danger, though, the polls predict a stable majority for remaining. Relief!

In the meantime he is bravely trying to limit the damage, by cleverly turning things into a win-win situation. He engages in a renegotiation of the terms of membership with his European partners, the positive outcome of which should strengthen his position and enable him not only to keep Britain in Europe but actually be perceived as an energetic reformer. Of course, he goes about it in somewhat clumsy manner, almost jeopardising his chances of success. And he also seems to handle all other details – the wording of the question, the fixing of the date, the issue of party discipline etc. – in his own hesitant, awkward way.

Some cliffhangers later the dénouement would be written in the future past, why not narrated in emotional flashbacks. He will have dauntlessly fought and argued in favour of membership, and once it’s all over and the leavers pop their (probably EU-produced) champagne, he remembers the day when he warned all stakeholders that his personal commitment and charisma may not be sufficient to counter-balance the momentum of nationalism spurred by a hateful press.

Looking back, the spectators will recognise that there will have been something inevitable about Brexit from the beginning; it’s just they were tricked by the scenario and the main protagonist into not noticing it. And with relations between the UK and Europe being what they are, the end of the story would be somewhat open, leaving the possibility to shoot a second season soon.

If this sounds all too silly, it’s probably just that I read too many Cold War spy novels in my Cold War youth. Apologies for letting my imagination run wild. At the same time, you will have to admit: if ever there was a soviet master spy like John le Carré’s mysteriously named ‘Karla’, driven by the long-term objective to dislocate the European Union, he could not possibly have recruited a better double agent than David Cameron, could he?

 Albrecht Sonntag, EU-Asia Institute
at ESSCA School of Management.
Follow us on Twitter: @Essca_Eu_Asia

The post Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, … Brexit! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.