Ideas on Europe Blog

Welcome to the Brexit Blog. This blog is not simply about British debates over the UK’s future in the EU. It is more about what Britain’s debate, attempted renegotiation, referendum and the outcome of that referendum could mean for the rest of Europe. As a start I’ve compiled below an overview of the literature that exists on what the ‘British question’ could mean for the rest of Europe.

The Conservative party’s victory in the May 2015 UK general election leaves the EU facing its British question sooner than many were expecting. It also means the EU faces an issue that only a few have given much in-depth thought about. This is not to say the idea of a British renegotiation, referendum and exit have not been hot topics of discussion for some time. They have been much discussed over dinners in Brussels or coffees in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere. There has also been a range of short pieces in the media, blogs and comments by politicians, sometimes at a series of events in the UK and elsewhere held to discuss the subject. The governments of some other EU member states, along with allies such as the USA, have undertaken private discussions and analysis.

Detailed publicly available analysis, on the other hand, has been more limited. This is especially so when compared to the plethora of research about what a Brexit or renegotiation might mean for the UK (the House of Commons Library has produced a short bibliography of the literature and its own review of the potential policy implications of a Brexit). Talk about what a Brexit might mean for the EU and people soon shift discussion to what it might mean for the UK. Undoubtedly the consequences for the UK would be far greater. But the question of what it might mean for the EU still stands.

This does not mean there has been no detailed analysis on which to prepare for the forthcoming negotiations and referendum. There exists a range of English language reports and papers that specifically analyse the EU’s position vis-à-vis the UK. There also exist a range of sources (often shorter than full reports, but more focused on specific issues) that provide broader insights. Further reports will emerge over the course of the renegotiation and referendum. Taking into account the EU’s perspective will also be of direct interest to the UK. Deadlock and failure will come from the UK failing to appreciate what is and is not in the interests of the EU and therefore what is a plausible relationship for Britain either as a member of the EU or for UK-EU relations if the UK leaves.

• A good overview of what a Brexit could mean for the EU is the September 2013 30-page report by the SWP entitled ‘Europe without Britain: assessing the impact on the European Union of a British withdrawal’. It covers everything from what the UK contributes to the EU to what a Brexit might mean for Europe’s geopolitics.

• In February 2014 Nicolai von Ondarza of the SWP published a 31-page report (in German) entitled, ‘Großbritannien und die EU-Reform: Empfehlungen für den Umgang mit den britischen Forderungen an die Europäische Union’ (Britain and EU reform: recommendations for dealing with British demands for EU reform). It examines in detail how to approach any UK attempt to renegotiate its relationship.

• The DGAP’s September 2014 report – ‘The UK and the EU: what would a Brexit mean for the EU and other states around the world’ – which I edited with Almut Möller, is made up of 26 views of a Brexit written by people from research institutions and universities from sixteen EU member states (France, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Slovenia, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands) nine non-EU countries (Canada, USA, China, Norway, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Brazil), and a view from the EU’s institutions in Brussels. It provides the most wide-ranging overview of how a variety of EU and non-EU countries might respond to the UK’s demands for reform or exit from the EU.

• Mark Leonard of the ECFR published a 2015 report ‘The British problem and what it means for Europe’ which examines what is driving demands for reform or exit, what a Brexit could mean for the EU, and how the EU might respond.

• In December 2013, Open Europe ran the first ever simulation – a war-game – of a UK-EU renegotiation followed by a negotiation over a UK exit. The online archive contains videos and a final report of the day’s proceedings. Open Europe have also written extensively on what the impact of a Brexit might be for the UK, with some of this analysis touching on possible implications for the rest of the EU.

• In September 2014, Deutsche Bank published a 20 page report analyzing the possible implications of a Brexit, especially economic ones, for the EU. A similar but shorter 8 page report was published by the Bertlesmann Foundation in April 2015.

• In 2013 the RUSI Journal published several short pieces on the possible defence and security implications for Europe of a Brexit. A January 2013 report from the International Security Information Service and NATO Watch also considered the defence implications. Europeangeostrategy.org has produced a series of posts (here, here and here) about the possible geopolitical implications of a Brexit.

• The legal side of a Brexit has been covered by a range of authors writing on how a member state might withdraw from the EU. See here for a report by Phoebus Athanassiou for the ECB examining the legal side to a withdrawal with attention in particular on Greece. Adam Lazowski of Westminster University has written in academic journals on the legal side of the UK exiting the EU, and has a forthcoming book on the topic. The UK and Article 50 is also examined in a blog piece by Steve Peers. Phedon Nicolaides 2013 article for the Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law also considers the effects of Article 50 on a withdrawing state. In April 2014 Clifford Chance undertook a legal review of the implications of a Brexit for the UK and EU financial sectors.

• In July 2013 the House of Commons Library produced a lengthy research paper examining how the UK might leave the EU, examining issues such as procedures and some passing analysis of possible implications for the EU, although the report’s focus is largely on the UK.

• The potential consequences for the EU have also been covered in some of the UK’s pro-withdrawal literature. Admittedly a great deal of the literature gives scant thought to the issue. They are more interested in what end Britain should seek in leaving the EU, meaning they can overlook analysing the ways and means by which to secure this, something only possible if the EU’s likely positions are also taken into account. Nevertheless they do offer some interesting insights. The IEA’s 2014 €100,000 Brexit prize produced a series of proposals. The winner by Iain Mansfield can be found here with a wider-ranging report by the IEA here. There also exist other proposals – to name but a few – such as Richard North’s proposal for a ‘Flexit’, David Campbell-Bannerman MEP’s ‘Time to Jump’, Dan Hannan MEP’s proposals (for the Centre for Policy Studies), proposals from Fresh Start, the Mayor of London, and Civitas, (click here for a second 2015 Civitas report and here for a report by them on the potential impact on the UK and EU car industries).

• The UK has also been the source of numerous proposals for how to reform the EU. Especially notable here is the work of the CER with its many reports. Its director, Charles Grant has written extensively on how the UK-EU relationship could develop in ways beneficial to all.

• One reason for there being so little analysis of what UK positions could mean is because there is a lack of clarity over what the UK itself is seeking. The UK’s Balance of Competences Review provides not only some insights into what may be up for renegotiation, but also one of the most detailed analyses ever undertaken of the EU’s powers. The best overview of the review is by Michal Emerson (ed.) for the Centre for European Policy Studies.

• In the academic literature the idea of European disintegration remains largely under-researched, the assumption being integration is a forward moving process. Douglas Webber’s January 2013 article in the European Journal of International Relations, ‘How like is it that the EU will disintegrate? A critical analysis of competing theoretical perspectives’ provides an excellent overview of what different theories of European integration can tell us. My own attempt, written for an academic conference, to apply a Brexit to Webber’s approach to the theories can be found here. There is also Hans Vollaard’s ‘Explaining European disintegration’ for the JCMS, and the Journal of Democracy October 2012 special issue on European disintegration. Later this month the Global Society will be publishing my article ‘Europe’s British Question: the UK-EU Relationship in a Changing Europe and Multipolar World’. The work in this area has built on some discussions at several academic conferences.

• Analysis of differentiated integration and opt-outs has been covered by a range of authors, for example Rebecca Adler-Nissen’s 2015 book ‘Opting out of the EU: diplomacy, sovereignty and European integration’.

• Some books and reports discussing the UK’s European debate include brief discussion of the possible implications for the EU. The book by Roger Liddle, Tony Blair’s former special adviser on Europe, ‘The Risk of Brexit’ (for Policy Network) provides some insights into how the rest of the EU may respond to British demands. Some other national perspectives can be found in the Foreign Policy Centre’s 2014 report ‘Renegotiation, reform and referendum: does Britain have an EU future?’, edited by Adam Hug. In May 2015, The Guardian asked five journalists from other European countries to give their thoughts on what a Brexit might mean for their states and the rest of Europe. The Guardian’s report on what might happen if the UK leaves the EU touches on some of the possible implications for the EU. As the UK and the EU move through a renegotiation and referendum we can expect more pieces such as that by The Telegraph examining how other EU member states are responding to British overtures.

It is not clear how much more time there will be to prepare further research on what a Brexit or renegotiated relationship might mean for the EU. Cameron is moving quickly to get a referendum bill through Parliament.  A referendum in 2016 instead of 2017 looks difficult, but is a possibility.

The post European thinking on its British Question appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Farah Purwaningrum

My book ‘Knowledge Governance in an Industrial Cluster. The Collaboration between Academia-Industry-Government in Indonesia’ examines the diverging strands of normative, social and territorial order of the science system. The insights from one of dynamic Asian countries – Indonesia provide interesting comparisons and contrasts with higher education and innovation policies in European countries. Several key findings of my research on Indonesian science system are as follows:

Lack of coordination

The institutional space afforded by the normative order shows a fuzzy and inconsistent norms and lack of coordination between ministries in Indonesia involved in the science and industrial sector. The Ministry of Research and Technology’s (RISTEK) science policy is geared towards national innovation system. The national research agenda composed by the National Research Council (DRN) and RISTEK is centralistic. It is decided in the capital city Jakarta. DRN itself act as a unit of RISTEK. The production of knowledge is aimed at seven areas: food security, energy, technology, transportation management, information and communication technology, defense and security, medicine and health technology, and advanced materials.

Romanticizing on the past of high-technology during the former President Habibie is also evident in the vision of IPTEK (ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi/science and technology) for the welfare and progress of civilization. IPTEK and the knowledge produced from it is viewed as a panacea. The national innovation system strategy was later on carried out as a project by RISTEK due to the apathetic response from the local government. Indeed the matter of research and development depends substantially on the regional government commitment, which can be restricted due to limited local budget capacity and clientele related matters.

Liberalization agenda

Directorate of Higher Education (DIKTI) in Ministry of National Education (MENDIKNAS) are taking measures to liberalise the higher education system. However, it is temporarily halted due to the Constitutional Court Decision that regards education as a public good and secures the right to education for Indonesian citizens. The Court is a lonely guardian of the citizen rights in contrast to the liberalization agenda pursued not only by MENDIKNAS but also Ministry of Industry. The recent legal reform proposes the introduction of non-profit legal entity (Badan Layanan Umum) for the state universities in the end of 2012. Profit or non-profit character of the organization is to be dictated by empirical reality instead of normative purview.

Industrial policy is also emphasising the liberalization agenda by reliance of its fiscal policy through tax incentives rather than through standardization mechanism. The current Master-plan for the Acceleration and Expansion for Indonesian Economic Development 2011-2025 is ambitious in its plan of connecting diverging hubs in different islands in Indonesia. The capital demands of this Master-plan is considerable large namely up to 400 billion US dollars, this is six times of Indonesia’s GDP in 2010. Java Economic Corridor focuses more on services, the remaining corridors are still largely based on natural resources.

From the analysis of the clusters related policies it becomes evident that 35 clusters specified do not point out to a bounded area of cluster either in a specific area such as the one in Ceper, or in Jababeka where there is natural industrial agglomeration. The extent of the feasibility of this policy in practice is contentious first due to the patchy bottom up planning and second due to sectoral planning due to lack of coordination between ministries. The Investment related laws exhibit friendliness towards tax holidays, tax incentives and labour policy. Less is shown in terms of reliance of smart regulation as incorporated in the technical engineering standards or national standardisation norms. The automotive industry policy also shows fiscal intervention in terms of import duty and luxury tax. There is a vacuous absence of industrial policy for knowledge transfer in the automotive sector, which exemplifies the reliance of the knowledge transfer process from the principal customers.

Research system: patronage, entrepreneurship and scattered resources

Universities are the main scientific knowledge producing organizations in terms of research as well as national publication activities. The pattern I observe from the statistical inference of the allocation of Insentif (research incentive programme) RISTEK grant from 2008-2010 and from the publication of scientific national journal indicates is geographical disparity of knowledge distribution. Practices of research-based organizations indicate that the science system still represent the tension of patronage, personal linkage harnessed with good relations. These practices enact the social space of interaction between actors. Centralization still persists. Researchers cope with the lack of funding by resorting to taking up additional jobs. Some are being entrepreneurial.

Moreover, the fluid character where ministries have their budget for research creates different doors to attain research funding. This underlines the fact that the existing capacity of research is restrained, resources are scattered due to ‘shared poverty.’ Further research is evaluated in terms of completing administrative requirements in the fiscal year, which may hamper the linkage between industry and research institutes. Nonetheless there is linkage between academia and industry as exemplified in the case of Biomaterial R&D and the Toyota case. The different modes of representation of academia and in industries may inhibit the knowledge flow. The case of Polymer Technology Center indicates how an academia is becoming more entrepreneurial.

Decentralization: connecting knowledge with locality

The territorial order then asks for the progress on decentralization and how the decentralized government as encapsulated in the pemekaran (splitting of administrative regions) process partake the role in development of bonded zone, and connecting knowledge with the locality. There is a plan of developing a bonded zone which will include Jababeka, Lippo & Delta Silicon, Hyundai, EJIP, Bekasi Fajar, MM2100 and Deltamas. It is likely that the bonded zone in the Bekasi district which will have the same fate like Batam, it will be relying to the central government funding, facilitated by the West Java Province with Estate Companies.

The District Government of Bekasi is facing challenges due to bureaucratization. The bureaucratization process is interwoven in the practices of the officials in which there is a high regard for more lucrative administrative positions than for functional positions. The rapid rotation of manpower also implies the loss of knowledge in the government. Constraints in the usage of budget is visible, this is aggravated with patron-client relations between the parliament and the local government and corrupt practices in the usage of budget. Pemekaran contributes to the bureaucratization process and the rise of bureaucratic elites. Thus pemekaran allows the geographical space in a decentralized government unit for a competition for resources.

This sketches the picture of the science system in Indonesia, where the authority relations and practices of the policy that keep the order of science system arises from differing orders. They signify on the one hand, the continuities of past practices of patronage, ‘shared poverty’ and centralization, and on the other hand formally there is increasing regulatory trend to expand and liberalize even more spaces. This collaboration, competition, centralization and liberalization construe the spaces of the science system in Indonesia.

Dr. Farah Purwaningrum is a sociologist with an interdisciplinary background in law. She holds law degrees from Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta and the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. She completed her Dr. phil. in Rheinische Friedrich Universität Bonn, Germany in 2012. She currently holds a lectureship in sociology at the Institute of Asian Studies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam. She has a keen interest to do research in areas of science policy, science system and knowledge governance. She will present her recent research at the ERA CRN section on the global governance of knowledge policies at the ECPR General Conference in Montreal, Canada, August 2015. 

The post Knowledge Governance in an Industrial Cluster: the Collaboration between Academia-Industry-Government appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

So here we are, about a month into the new government. How’s it shaping up with the EU referendum thing? For me, four things stick out so far.

Firstly, David Cameron has conformed to type in his approach to the matter. Assuming that he was a surprised as the next man (that next man being Ed Miliband) to win the election, he has set about things in as pragmatic a manner as possible. That has meant some dashing between continental capitals to sound out/reassure/lobby (in that order) key interlocutors; tying in key sceptics into the negotiation team (most obviously Hammond, May and Osborne) and generally trying to keep a lid on things. The unexpected nature of his electoral victory has given Cameron a (very) brief window of opportunity with his party, and he’s using that to full effect, not dawdling on negotiations.

The obvious trade-off is that Cameron still doesn’t have a good idea of what he can achieve or ‘win’. The continued absence of a clear agenda of policy points strongly reinforces the impression that he’s biddable on most things. As the useful Cicero Group summary showed, much of what has been discussed is actually a matter for HMG itself to do, rather than any change in EU treaties or legislation: likewise, the continuing muddle about the ECHR doesn’t give great confidence that anyone in Number 10 is building a constructive agenda of work. This despite the arrival of Mats Persson of Open Europe as Cameron’s special advisor, a level-headed if critical voice.

This feeds into the second point, namely that the UK continues to navel-gaze. The debate so far has been very largely about getting something for the UK out of this, and how ‘Europe’ might try to stifle (or, more rarely, help) that. Almost completely absent have been frames of making things better for the whole EU: Cameron’s comments in Riga a couple of weeks ago suggest the tone. For Cameron, his negotiation team and most of his party, this will be not only presented as ‘us’ against ‘them’, but pursued as such.

Where the more constructive/engaged frame has emerged (as here) it has come from the few pro-EU voices to have put their head above the parapet. This is, in of itself, something to note, since there was a widespread assumption that it would take an actual referendum for the pro campaign to stir itself. Fair to say that neither side has really got going yet (this, this, this, this and this as a small sample) in part because of the uncertainty about what’s happening with the renegotiation element and in part because of the obvious personality politics involved.

The third observation is that the election itself continues to exert an influence on matters. Labour and the LibDems are busy regrouping and lack leadership to challenge Cameron’s plan; Cameron’s enhanced position vis-a-vis his backbench has already been noted; and the SNP are finding that more MPs doesn’t really help when they have little to leverage against the government. Most interesting (for me, at least) has been the winding in of UKIP in the aftermath of the Farage (un)resignation: without his presence in public, the party has lost a lot of the profile it had in the media pre-election. A quick check of their website shows they are still pumped out content and comment, but without much pick up. the Blatter/Farage comparisons also suggest that the latter has suffered at least some damage to his teflon reputation.

And so, finally, to the continuing apathy of most people, something that has been deeply palpable. There’s some evidence of a recent upswing of interest, as the chart from Google Trends (below) shows, but only back to the sort of level seen in the aftermath of the Constitutional Treaty a decade ago: far from the burning, predominant issue it sometimes is presented as. More anecdotally, there isn’t a sense of febrile political debate on the subject in the street and in the pubs of the country: it’s certainly more AV referendum than Scottish independence referendum  to date.

 Added to this, we have more polling evidence (insert witty observation about reliability issues here) that the British public is increasingly supportive of EU membership, and it’s as clear as ever that this referendum – when it does come and pretty much regardless of its content – will solve little of the underlying problems. Already, critical voices talk of a second vote, or of a set-up. Unless the renegotiation agenda firms up, and a more meaningful public debate develops, this is unlikely to be anything more than a costly diversion from the serious issues facing both the EU and the UK.

The post The coming referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Last week, interior ministers of the 15 countries sitting at the UN Security Council met to discuss foreign fighters. They did so as part of the follow-up of

Resolution 2178 (2014), which defines foreign fighters as people “who travel or attempt to travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality, and other individuals who travel or attempt to travel from their territories to a State other than their States of residence or nationality, for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts, or the providing or receiving of terrorist training”.

This is hardly a new phenomenon, but foreign fighters are getting more and more attention in relation to Syria and Iraq. The number of foreign fighters in both countries could exceed 20,000, and according to the Director of Europol, between 3,000 and 5,000 of them would come from EU countries.

In Resolution 2178, as well as previous ones since 2001, the Security Council urges states to adopt legislative and criminal measures to prevent terrorism and bring suspects to justice.

With the intention to operationalise the mandate of the Security Council, the Council of Europe is working on a draft protocol to the 2005 European Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. This text criminalises the action of joining a group and “participating” in its activities “for the purpose of committing or contributing to the commission” of terrorist offences (Article 2), “receiving training for terrorism” (Article 3), “travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism” (Article 4), “funding travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism” (Article 5), or “organising or otherwise facilitating travelling” for that purpose (Article 6).

As noted by Scheinin, the formulation of these provisions relies on the intent (“purpose”) of the person to participate or contribute towards the commission of a terrorist offence.

The draft protocol, therefore, does not call for the criminalisation of travelling to conflict zones, and individual countries have not modified their criminal legislation to punish travelling per se. The subjective element of intent is required.

However, a variety of measures are already being taken in relation to foreign fighters, ranging from passport confiscation (Germany), attempts to bar foreign fighters from acquiring national citizenship (Austria), stripping known foreign fighters of access to social services (Belgium), or revoking naturalised nationality (UK and Netherlands) (see reports here, here and here).

So far, these measures are targeting Islamic foreign fighters travelling to conflict areas with a religious motivation. However, there is no reason why these measures could not be potentially applied to other conflicts. For example, Spanish authorities recently detained eight nationals that had fought in Ukraine on the pro-Russian side. Apparently their actions may have infringed Spain’s neutrality, and therefore compromise the country’s “peace or independence”.

(Spain has recently modified its criminal legislation to persecute and punish “jihadist-style international terrorists”. Incidentally, this legislative reform coincides with a restriction of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the country. Prosecuting international terrorists is going to be easier, but doing so with genocidaires and war criminals is becoming nearly impossible in Spain.)

Thankfully, the UK, the US and tens of other countries did not think along those lines when George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway and 30,000 other international brigadiers travelled to Spain to fight Franco during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).

The reader may argue that defending freedom and democracy against fascism is not exactly what pro-Russians and Islamists are doing in Eastern Ukraine and Syria/Iraq, respectively.

My point is different, though. The criminalisation of foreign fighters with the discourse of terrorism poses a fundamental challenge to the jus in bello, that is, to the law that regulates acceptable wartime conduct.

Terrorism is not a condition (“to be a terrorist”), but an action (“to commit a terrorist act”), and it is already prohibited in International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Articles 33 of the 1949 4th Geneva Convention, 51(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol 1, and 4(2)(d) and 13(2) of the Additional Protocol II, of the same year. The International Committee of the Red Cross has authoritatively established that:

“The term ‘terrorist act’ should be used, in the context of armed conflict, only in relation to the few acts specifically designated as such under the treaties of IHL. It should not be used to describe acts that are lawful or not prohibited by IHL. While there is clearly an overlap in terms of the prohibition of attacks against civilians and civilian objects under both IHL and domestic law, it is believed that, overall, there are more disadvantages than advantages to additionally designating such acts as ‘terrorist’ when committed in situations of armed conflict (whether under the relevant international legal framework or under domestic law). Thus, with the exception of the few specific acts of terrorism that may take place in armed conflict, it is submitted that the term ‘act of terrorism’ should be reserved for acts of violence committed outside of armed conflict.”

Being a human action and not a human condition, terrorism (the act of terrorism) is a matter of jus in bello, not jus ad bellum (acceptable justification to engage in war).

In other words, the determination of whether an act should be considered terrorist does not depend on the legitimacy of the use of force, but rather on whether such an act meets the objective and subjective elements of the crime, as defined in IHL.

Being an action, therefore, terrorist crimes can be potentially committed by ISIS as much as by the Free Syrian Army, by the Ukrainian army as much as pro-Russian groups, by Hitler as much as by the Allies in Dresden.

Again, this does not question the legitimacy of the use of force by Brits against the Nazi Germany (for which Europeans will never be grateful enough). It is not a sign of agnosticism regarding Ukrainian national integrity either. And it does not ignore that ISIS violates the human rights of the Iraqi population under its control in all imaginable ways.

The point I try to make here is that by using the discourse of terrorism in relation to foreign fighters, and by extending criminal jurisdiction over the foreign territories where these conflicts take place, we are breaching the fundamental distinction between the acceptable behaviour in warfare and the acceptable justification to use military force.

Countries must indeed hold accountable those who have allegedly committed war crimes. But the criminalisation of travelling, receiving training or joining forces in countries at war is not the way to do it, as much as we may loathe ISIS, prefer the Free Syrian Army to Al-Nusra, and fear Russia.

The post Against the criminalisation of foreign fighters with the discourse of terrorism appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Ten years ago today, the French voted down the European Constitution Treaty, which was supposed to replace existing EU Treaties and institute key changes such as the appointment of a EU foreign minister. This was followed by an even stronger ‘No’ in the Netherlands three days later. These ‘No’ votes succeeded where the Danish 1992 ‘No’ to Maastricht and the Irish 2000 ‘No’ to Nice had failed, forcing EU leaders to come-up with a new reform Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty.

At a time when the UK is gearing up for the in/out referendum on EU membership, this post reflects on the 2005 referendum campaigns and their aftermaths in France and the Netherlands. It highlights key similarities – the ‘No’ votes revealed how disconnected European elites and the general population had become – as well as central differences in the ways the two countries re-engaged with Europe since these votes. I explore these differences in “European strategies” by looking at French and Dutch engagement with EU environment and climate policy.

From pro-Europe to confused-about-Europe

The 2005 referendums revealed the thin consensus on Europe among both citizens and elites in France and the Netherlands. In 2005 the main French left party, PS (Parti Socialiste), was divided with the ‘Yes’ staunchly defended by the infamous former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the ‘No’ upheld by current Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.[1] Both main right and left wing parties stood officially together for ‘Yes’, leading to an infamous picture of Francois Hollande and Nicholas Sarkozy – both party leaders at that time – standing next to each other.

Sources:  France Culture, Paris Match and Grasset

In the Netherlands, Eurosceptic parties remained at the margins throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but put increasing pressure on the mainstream parties[2]. The clear ‘No’ vote showed how the Dutch political elite (and the Dutch media) were out of sync with the public, leaving the political class “divided and confused[3]”.

The referendums thus left the two countries’ relations with Europe in shambles – pushing these member states toward disengagement with European affairs. This is because the referendums made the EU toxic for the French socialist party, striving to mend the breach between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ sides, and for the Dutch parties in the subsequent 2006 election, who avoided raising the European issue. The referendums opened the way for a more openly critical attitude to the EU among political elites in both countries. In the Netherlands this critical view was at its strongest under the first Rutte government (2010-2012), the country’s first minority government supported by the Eurosceptic party PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid). In France the 2012 election saw both Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande going “EU-Negative”, with Hollande criticising the European Budgetary Pact and Sarkozy pledging to revise Schengen rules.[4]

Reengaging with Europe – two distinct strategies

The two countries’ trajectories diverged when it came to re-engaging with Europe. Dutch positions on the EU before the referendum were often presented as paradoxical, “for, as well as against”. On the one hand, the Dutch turned more negative on defence cooperation, intergovernmental efforts in general, any favouritism for big member states and on migration policies. On the other hand, the Dutch policy supported economic integration and a strong European Commission – but also, conventionally, environmental legislation. After the referendum the Netherlands held on to their position, supporting further European integration only in certain areas.[5]

Recent Dutch governments have been strong advocates for subsidiarity and proportionality in EU actions, and for reduced EU ‘red tape’.  Over the last ten years Dutch influence on these issues grew,[6] while crucially EU environmental policies changed status – from favoured policy to potential ‘red tape’. For example, in 2009 the Dutch Prime Minister asked for a review of Nature Policies, in 2013 the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, produced a subsidiarity review, and the Dutch government initiated the “Make It Work” initiative with the UK and Germany to review EU environmental legislation. The Dutch position on green ‘red tape’ grew more influential when Timmermans became First Vice President for Better Regulation and Subsidiarity in the Juncker Commission. Subsequently, the new Commission’s 2015 working programme came under criticism for hindering environmental policy expansion, and pledging to update key nature policies.

Whereas the Netherlands were instrumental in changing the way the Commission worked in the last ten years, France appears to have grown weaker in Brussels: this is supported by its weakness inside the European Parliament, a smaller number of high ranking French officials in the Commission and constantly changing European Ministers. France has long had a problematic relationship with EU environmental policies – from the opposition of its hunter lobby to the birds’ directive, to implementation problems on nitrates pollution from farm activities or to its fisheries’ impact on young fish stocks. Thus a weakened France could in principle have been good for environmental policies. But despite its decreasing weight in “everyday” Brussels, France still managed to influence EU environmental legislation at critical points – both positively and negatively. For example, Sarkozy’s 2008 European Presidency signalled a “return to Europe” – building on the success of the 2007 German presidency it yielded a deal on the Climate and Energy package. But one should not exaggerate the impact of this French “victory” for climate policy: France did not become a green leader after 2005. This is perhaps best illustrated by the recent 2013 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, where France opposed CAP greening, and thus undermined a key attempt to mainstream environmental policy in the EU.

Ten years later, it may be up to Laurent Fabius, then advocate of the ‘No’ to the Constitution Treaty, now head of Paris COP21[7] in December, to signal further French re-engagement with Europe. The climate negotiations offer the French another opportunity – indeed an obligation – to lead on environmental issues on behalf of the EU. But, irrespective of the outcome of COP21 and of the French flair for shining in high politics, the last ten years saw a degradation of French influence and engagement in Brussels, which will take long – and more than a successful COP! – to fix.

Lessons for the UK Referendum

While the UK situation differs considerably, the two referendums offer useful lessons: first, referendums cast a long shadow on national politics – it can be very difficult to return to ‘normal’ after a lost referendum. Second, although some issues may be given prominence during campaigns before a referendum, the outcome impacts all policies – thus, the UK in/out referendum is not ‘just’ about migration or even the welfare state. Finally no two referendums are the same: the variety of political systems in the EU means that different states will find their own unique way back in – or out – of Brussels.

[1] Previously, the French right had split on the narrowly won Maastricht Treaty referendum in 1993.

[2] Startin and Krouwel (2013, p.67)

[3] Rood (2009, p.70)

[4] Vassallo (2012, p.79)

[5] Rood (2009, p.71)

[6] See for example the diffusion of the Dutch Standard Cost Model across Europe and at EU level.

[7] Conference of Parties

The post Ten Years after the French and Dutch ‘No’: How the Two Countries Reinvented their Relationship with Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It has been sixty years between the idea to create a truly pan-European competition for football clubs and the Champions League final in Berlin between Barcelona and Juventus next week. But it has not been a linear evolution from the first tournament launched with sixteen clubs handpicked by the journalists from L’Equipe and today’s huge multi-million euro business. Right in the middle of these sixty years, on 29 May 1985, there was a traumatic watershed moment after which nothing was the same anymore. ‘The Heysel’, as the tragic event is still referred to today across the continent, has become a European lieu de mémoire.

The Heysel stadium is named after King Beaudouin today, but that does not exorcise the haunting memory of European football’s darkest hour, when 39 mostly Italian supporters died in the Brussels football stadium in a stampede after Liverpool hooligans had invaded the section reserved for Juventus supporters just before kick-off of the European cup final. Six hundred more were severely injured.

Whatever the name given to it – ‘disaster’, ‘massacre’, ‘tragedy’ – the Heysel is a European traumatism. The ‘live televised death’ as La Repubblica labelled it, left a deep mark on the millions of Europeans that had switched on their television set in excited anticipation for what was expected to be a summit of European football culture. As Michel Platini, who scored the decisive goal in the match that took finally place despite what happened around the pitch, declared in 2010, no one who witnessed this tragedy ‘will ever be able to erase it from their memory’.

In an excellent chapter in a recent book on European football memory (1), Clemens Kech describes how the simultaneous Europe-wide media coverage turned this event first into a collective experience perceived to be massively shared across national borders, then into a genuine ‘European site of memory’ by making a European public engage in the discussion and evaluation of what had happened.

He also shows how over time the interpretation of the event slowly changes. At first, there is a strong emphasis in public debate on the archaic barbarism and brutal savageness displayed on that day. Among the different emotions triggered by this perception, the most powerful is no doubt a sort of collective shame across the continent, a reaction that comes close to the phenomenon of ‘moral panic’. Most importantly, this panic was felt and expressed by a clearly transnational public despite the well-known linguistic and cultural barriers within the European media landscape. Emotions were explicitly expressed in the name of ‘European values’ or ‘European civilization’.

Years later, in the collective commemoration of the event – whose remembrance is never completely extinguished but regularly activated with peaks every five years – the symbolic value assigned to it started to shift towards issues of crowd control and security issues. From today’s perspective, ‘the Heysel’, whose impact was reinforced by other disasters like ‘Hillsborough‘ (1989), marks a turning point in the organisation of large football events. It may be considered a watershed not only in the perception of football violence in general, but also in international cooperation on European level with regard to stadium design and regulations, crowd policing and spectator safety.

One way or another, the Heysel, which has a wikipedia entry in over twenty languages, will continue to be remembered as ‘a symbol of manmade tragedy’ as Clemens Kech summarises. It has become a reference point in the history of a common, transnational culture.

(1) European Football and Collective Memory,
edited by Nils Havemann and Wolfram Pyta,
London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015, published
within the ‘Football in an Enlarged Europe’
book series.

The post 30 years ago – European football’s major lieu de mémoire appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

In my previous post I analyzed the first ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), “S.A.S v. France”, concerning the full-face veil. The ECtHR introduced the principle “living together” as a legitimate aim to ban the burqa and niqab in France, on the basis that wearing the full-face veil hinders communication among individuals. I thought that ruling was dangerously opening the door to prohibit the full-face veil in other countries. Last Friday, the Dutch cabinet approved a proposal for a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils on public transport and in public areas such as schools and hospitals.

The recent legitimate aim, “living together”, introduced by the ECtHR at “S.A.S v. France”, seems to justify a general prohibition of the Islamic full-face veil. However, I believe that these types of generalized prohibitions, apart from dangerously opening the door to prohibiting the full-face veil in other countries, will not eradicate a tradition with strong cultural and religious roots among Muslim women. Hidden under the disguise of a general prohibition is not only a fear of discrimination, but an apprehension to pluralism at its deepest core, which makes uncovering the veil a more comfortable option for westerners. This hesitation to what is foreign is that what must be altered, to learn to value and appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of that which is different. It is only when foreign ideas are viewed with acceptance and respect under a universal vision, that integration and mutual tolerance will thrive, steering far away from prejudice and inequality.[1] In fact, a general ban implies shunning that which opposes one’s views, with the idea that the foreigner should adopt the traditions of the host country. Therefore, instead of restricting such a manifestation of religion, efforts should shift toward a more inclusive approach to strengthen dialogue between states and the Muslim organizations. Such an approach would encourage communication and understanding of wearing the full-face veil throughout Europe, promoting values of respect, acceptance, and coexistence in a social, plural, and democratic state.

This blog post is based on the research I conducted for my Master Thesis at Erasmus University Rotterdam, which led to the publication “Pertinence of a General Prohibition of the Burqa and Niqab in Spain: A Human Rights Perspective” in the Yearbook on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights.

[1] See Dogru v. France, §62. See also S.A.S. v. France, §128

The post Dutch Partial Ban on Islamic Veil in Public Spaces appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

A spokesman for the British Prime Minster said:

“This is a big decision for our country, one that is about the future of the United Kingdom. That’s why we think it’s important that it is British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens that are the ones who get to decide.”

But the voting franchise on who can vote in the UK has more to do with Britain’s distant past than its future.  Its roots go back to Britain’s Empire, when countries across the world were ruled by Great Britain.  At one time or another, Britain invaded almost 90% of the world’s nations.  At the Empire’s peak, atlases showed half the world coloured pink, signifying British rule.

Over time, as the British reign softened, many of these countries became self-governing whilst retaining Britain’s monarch as Head of State.  The Commonwealth of British Nations was formed in 1949 with membership on a voluntary basis.  The last two countries to join The Commonwealth – Rwanda and Mozambique – have no ties with Britain’s Empire.

Including Britain, 55 countries across the world are members of The Commonwealth, and all citizens from those countries resident with ‘leave-to-remain’ in the UK will be able to vote in the Referendum. 

They include citizens living in the UK from Australia, Canada, Ghana, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe.  Just two EU countries are members of the Commonwealth, Malta and Cyprus, and citizens from those countries resident in the UK will also get a vote.

The right-to-vote in the UK elections doesn’t end when Commonwealth membership ends.  The UK’s Electoral Commission told me yesterday, “Commonwealth citizens retain their voting rights even if the country of which they are a national has been suspended from the Commonwealth.”

In addition, citizens living in the UK from 15 ‘British Overseas Territories’ will also have a say on Britain’s future in Europe, including those from Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands and Montserrat.  The British government has announced that residents of its Overseas Territory, Gibraltar, whether living there or here, will also be able to vote in the Referendum.

Citizens of the British Crown Dependents of the Isle of Man and the Channel Island also have the vote.  And as a result of a special treaty signed between Britain and Ireland, Irish citizens living in the UK will also have a vote in the referendum.

But citizens from 24 EU countries who have made Britain their home, who reside here, work here, pay taxes here and many of whom have started families here, will have no vote on whether Britain will stay a member of the EU, even though the decision directly affects them.   Many of these EU citizens have been living in Britain for over 30 years.  They hadn’t taken out British citizenship because, under EU rules, they all have European Citizenship, meaning that, like all EU nationalities, they can move to any other EU country and enjoy the same rights as native citizens of that country.

Except that residents here from other EU countries do not enjoy the same voting rights as British citizens – or those of over 70 nationalities across the world, who because of Britain’s imperial past, still retain the historical right to vote here in our General Elections and the forthcoming referendum.

EU citizens living in the UK denied a referendum vote include French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Danish, Romanian and Swedish residents  – all denied a vote, whilst those living here from nations including Grenada, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Seychelles and Sri Lanka will have a say on Britain’s future in the EU.

Also excluded from the referendum vote will be British citizens who have lived abroad for over 15 years – an arcane rule that the Conservatives promised in their manifesto would be scrapped. But it seems that the rule will not be changed in time for the referendum.

Uniquely for the referendum, members of the House of Lords will be given a vote, but unlike in last year’s Scottish referendum on independence, 16 and 17 year-olds will not. (In the Scottish referendum, EU migrants were also permitted to vote). However, the fact that the UK government can amend the rules on who can vote in the referendum, means that it is politically and practically possible to change the voting franchise for what will be a once-in-a-generation (or-two) event.

Yesterday I contacted No 10 Downing Street, the home of British Prime Minister, David Cameron.  A spokesman told me that the voting rights and rules for the referendum will be broadly the same as those of a British General Election.  But, he added, it would be subject to the consent of Parliament.

Maybe our Members of Parliament will see sense and realise that there is a serious democratic deficit in allowing so many different nationalities to vote in the forthcoming EU referendum, but to specifically exclude most nationalities living here from the rest of Europe, as well as denying a vote to many British people living abroad.  

#EUReferendum: who can and can’t vote and is it fair? Read @Jon_Danzig on our Facebook page http://t.co/nha8RDX0Xa pic.twitter.com/b7U5NoP72U

— New Europeans (@NewEuropeans) May 27, 2015

Other articles by Jon Danzig:

• Can’t vote or don’t vote?
• Britain’s human rights law: endorsed by Churchill, written by British lawyers, adopted by 47 European countries
• Censored by The Daily Telegraph

The post The Referendum – who can and can’t vote? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On the 21th of May 2015 I had for the first time in my life the honour to present my research paper as a Panelist at the VIII International Student Conference “Politics & Society in Central and Eastern Europe” at the University of Wroclaw, Poland. The heading of my Paper was “Transformation of Politics in Estonia – Contextualizing Political Accountability in the European Union” and it was built on my presentation held at the CBEES Annual Conference at Södertörn University in December 2014.

The Conferece took place in the framework of 21-22 May Dni Politologa: http://politologia.uni.wroc.pl/index.php/instytut-2/wydarzenianew/522-dni-politologia , and hosted very interesting research results from University of Wroclaw, University of Warsaw, University of Bucharest, Vytautas Magnus University Lithuania, Masaryk University in Brno Czech Republic, Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca Romania, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iasi Romania, University of Donja Gorica in Podgorica Montenegro, and an independent researcher was representing Iran.

Not to talk about managing technical problems (and this time, in addition to the problems with the computer, I was myself too focused on the text of the presentation and concepts – to the extent that I completely forgot that it usually is an advantage to have a clear structure in the beginning of one’s presentation), I was talking about the scientific and normative concepts of political party and political party operating at European level (Europarty), the political history of Europe, comparatively about the Europarties and political parties of the EU Member States, political representation in the European Parliament. I mentioned political foundation at European level as different from Europarties and gave an overview about Europarties and Estonia’s representation in those. The overall aim was to better understand governance and accountability in the European Union (by demonstrating those through political and historical context).

The presentation distinguished between party competition / political competition (duopolism as an example of party competition) and political opposition as known from the Cold War era / understood very generally as East-West opposition (not connected with a State government solely but as applicable toward World governance). These are different phenomena and the relevance of the difference can be explained followingly: while one can see continuity in party competition, one can see discontinuity in such political opposition / conflict as referred above, maybe similarly to continuity and discontinuity in human rights history. And, being a lawyer with human rights research background, I would claim that although human rights are political rights, requiring existence of political mechanisms for their validation and implementation, that the real “career” of human rights for Europe  developed after the II World War, and that politicians have used and use human rights for achieving political aims (marking their discontinuity), human rights are emanating from something more continuous than political processes, being connected with human nature and nature of societal co-existing.

The post Contextualizing Political Accountability in the European Union appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On Tuesday I went to one of my alma maters, LSE’s European Institute, to listen to a panel on Britain’s EU policy. As well as storifying it, I’ve also been thinking about the discussion and particularly three of the things mentioned by Simon Hix, one of the panellists.

“Never underestimate the EU’s ability to find a way to muddle through”

As has been discussed on this blog before, crisis is in many ways the dominant mode of the EU and its predecessors: there’s always something that’s a problem and which requires urgent (and improvised) action. If we can accept that, then the British situation is merely another in a long line stretching from the EDC and the Empty Chair crisis, and there will be a way to sort something out.

In this context, that might mean agreements for the UK that are not embodied in treaty reform per se, but instead in some novel form, such as declarations or intergovermental accords, or the like. As was pointed out at the event, some of the key British objectives might be secured through amending directives, a much more manageable (if still tricky) process than opening a new IGC.

Of course, the danger here is that if too many people come to believe that ‘a way will be found’, then that potentially increases the risk that it doesn’t happen, because everyone assumes someone else is doing it (indeed, that’s what I’m doing here too: I’m not offering any creative solutions): it’s a bit of a ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation, only partly mitigated by the presence of one party who have a strong interest in finding a deal: the British. Now that he is locked on this path, Cameron will not want to turn up empty-handed from any renegotiation, if only for his personal reputation and for getting through the next five years with his backbench, which gives him a good reason to find solutions.

“Never underestimate British arrogance”

However, there’s a second problem. As Hix notes, the dominant way that Brits talk about themselves is a great power (think Empire, sun never setting, UNSC permanent chair, beacon of all that is good, etc.): there’s not a great deal of humility going around, certainly not with this government. The German debate of tying oneself into a European system to protect oneself and others simply wouldn’t happen in the UK. And why should it, you ask?

Exactly.

Naturally, such a view is not universal – it’s one of the reasons that recent Tory governments have been rather suspicious of the Foreign Office – but they are deeply resonant. And in the context of a renegotiation, a view that ‘they need us more than we need them’ is likely to make matters more difficult to resolve. Yes, the UK is a big market for other EU member states, but it’s not as big as the EU market is to the UK: miscalculations of strength/influence raise the risk of an impasse.

And it’s not just the negotiators: the British public will have to be convinced that a meaningful and ‘successful’ deal has been struck by Cameron, if he is to benefit from that stage of the process. If we are going for novel, non-treaty based changes (as above) then that becomes easier to challenge.

“The renegotiation deal doesn’t actually matter at all: it’ll all come down to calculations of the benefit of membership”

In Hix’s view, this might not really matter in any case, because hardly anyone will be too bothered about any ‘deal’: they’ll follow broader cues and perceptions about the value of the system. In this, it’ll be 1975 again, where Wilson’s ‘renegotiation’ really didn’t come into matters at all.

I’ve got some sympathy for this view, since it’s clear that most people don’t have a strong (in the sense of being deeply held) view on the EU, but rather pile it into a wider understanding of their situation: limiting migrant worker benefits by a couple of extra years is neither here nor there.

What does become more important is the bigger picture of the EU’s situation: all the panellists agreed that if the Greek situation worsens, then that will badly damage the ‘yes’ campaign: why shackle yourself to a corpse, in the colourful metaphor of some sceptics. That a resolution in this looks to be no closer than before doesn’t bode well.

As this referendum campaign starts to gather pace, not least with next week’s unveiling of a referendum bill in the Queen’s speech, we are likely to see more of these dynamics. Enjoy the ride.

The post The Brexit referendum: some underlying dynamics appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The return of a majority Conservative government following the May 2015 general election in the UK has made the Conservative Party’s plans for reforming human rights law in the United Kingdom a likely prospect. It is recalled that on 3 October 2014, the Conservative Party published a policy document that sets out its proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

In addition, the policy document raises the prospect that the UK might withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) though this is less clearly formulated. It expresses a general desire for the UK to remain part of the ECHR, but only if ‘the Council [of Europe] will recognise these changes to our Human Rights laws’. It contains the warning that in ‘the event that we are unable to reach that agreement, the UK would be left with no alternative but to withdraw from the ECHR, at the point at which our Bill comes into effect’.

The Conservative Party’s election manifesto repeats the party’s intention to ‘scrap’ the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. It also promises to ‘curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights’ but, in contrast to the policy document from October 2014, does not mention withdrawal from the ECHR, so that one must presume that this is not a manifesto commitment.

These plans raise a host of legal questions, some of which were discussed at a workshop held at Edinburgh Law School in February, which had received the support of a UACES Small Events Grant.[1] The product is a policy paper. The following are its key findings.

It is axiomatic that the HRA can be repealed by Act of Parliament. However, any attempt to repeal and/or replace it would need to take into account the devolution settlement. The legal situation in this respect is not obvious.  Repeal of the HRA might trigger the Sewel Convention so that the devolved legislatures might need to be asked for their consent. Depending on timing, at the point at which an Act repealing the HRA is passed, the Convention may be enshrined in statute following the recommendations of the Smith Commission. This might make a repeal if not legally impossible then politically very difficult. For instance, the Scottish government seems opposed to a repeal. As regards Northern Ireland, a repeal would at present run counter to the UK’s international treaty obligations under the British-Irish Agreement, which was incorporated in, and agreed as part of the UK-Ireland obligations under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. The Agreement places the UK under an international treaty obligation to ‘complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the ECHR’.

If the HRA is replaced by a British Bill of Rights it might require the consent of the devolved legislatures. In substantive terms, it would provide Parliament with the opportunity to provide for the protection of additional (non-Convention) rights. Having said that, the political dynamic surrounding the possible repeal of the HRA suggests that rights protected will be curtailed rather than expanded. Moreover, it would also allow Parliament to introduce certain procedural changes, such as no longer making it mandatory for courts ‘to take into account’ the case law of the ECtHR or to read legislation ‘as far as it is possible to do so’ compatibly with Convention rights.

In the unlikely event that the HRA were not replaced (or if a replacement leaves significant gaps in the human rights protection), individuals would still be able to rely on common law remedies, as far as they exist, as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in cases in which the UK has acted within the scope of EU law. Given that the Charter is based on the ECHR, in some areas a repeal of the HRA might not lead to the desired result.  Moreover, if the UK remains a party to the ECHR the right to lodge a complaint with the ECtHR would still exist.

Withdrawal from the ECHR is technically possible with six months’ notice.  It would, however, have wider consequences for the UK’s other international commitments in that long-term membership of the Council of Europe may become impossible and a withdrawal from the ECHR may be incompatible with the UK’s commitments as a member of the European Union. Importantly, it would not relieve the UK of the duty to comply with judgments already handed down by the ECtHR, for instance on prisoner voting. Moreover, the UK would also be setting a negative example internationally.

[1] The workshop consisted of presentations by Ed Bates, Christine Bell, Colm O’Cinneide, Fiona de Londras, Sir David Edward, Alan Greene, Paul Johnson, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, and Tobias Lock.

The post The Legal Implications of a Repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Withdrawal from the ECHR appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Nobody can tackle IUU fishing alone: Will opportunities for global leadership be grasped?

IUU fishing activity detected by Google Earth Images

Those who doubted the potential of the European Union’s Council Regulation 1005/2008 (the IUU Regulation) to change the laissez faire culture that has been prevalent for too long in respect of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities inside and outside EU borders have had plenty of food for thought over the past four and a half years. In the time since the IUU Regulation came into force, the yellow card warning system, followed up on occasion by a trade-suspending red card, have seen a significant change in the administrative practices of a number of fish producing countries.  Most importantly, the IUU Regulation has placed IUU fishing high in the agendas of nations that had previously not been predisposed to delve into the issue.

True, the regime is not perfect and there is yet much work to do to make a true dent in the global IUU trade. IUU fishing practices continue to cause vast losses to the worldwide economy (Eur. 10 Bn, according to the European Directorate for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries – DG Mare- which is equivalent to 19% of the reported value of catches worldwide). In addition, the destructive and insidious nature of IUU operations cause important harm not only to fish stocks and the marine environment, but also undermines every seafood producing fleet that plays by the rules. The ungovernable nature of covert IUU activities means that administrations that are keen to ensure sustainable exploitation have their work systematically undermined by the covert, dishonest nature of unreported captures.

Millions of people depend on seafood for nutrition as well as work and income, not just in producing countries, but also through the processing, importation and distribution and retail of seafood products. Further, many of those involved in fisheries have close, even ancestral, cultural ties to the activity. In many regions of the world (including of course the EU) domestic fishery production cannot match internal demand, and imports from third countries have become a necessity.

What this means, of course, is that the conservation and sustainable management of fishery resources is a collective, thoroughly intertwined effort of many actors and of very diverse nationalities. Nobody can tackle IUU fishing alone, irrespective of how much they may want to.

Yet, not everyone wants to. Routine commercial narratives evidence attitudes where business as usual, and turning a blind eye to stock erosion and illegality creep, are rife. A good illustration of such attitudes was a recent comment made to the Thai press by the head from a national fishery association, asserting his view that the yellow card presented to Thailand over IUU fishing by the EU must have more to do with protectionism and political intervention rather than with the relevance of Thailand’s mismanagement of the considerable presence of IUU activity in their production chains (not to mention the serious mistreatment of people, including their trafficking and abuse, marring the Thai seafood industry). If a comment ever represented a lack of consciousness as well as conscience, then this is it.

The interviewee’s suggestion that Thailand should seek to export to the Middle East, rather than put in an effort to clean up its act is sadly representative of a type of viewpoint that prioritises short-term, entrenched approaches that are not only ultimately doomed to failure, but which also represent a real risk for all administrations working toward long term, rational and fair approaches to seafood production and trade.

It is clear that a sustained collective effort is needed in order to address and change such attitudes and get to the root of IUU activity. With this in mind, the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud has recently presented its Action Plan for Implementing the Task Force Recommendations has caused some degree of concern at House of Ocean. Whilst much of what is contained here is ambitious and commendable, it is striking that no mention is made anywhere in the report with regard to trade measure compatibility with existing programmes and regimes. In particular, coordination with the EU is only mentioned in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) agreement, the negotiations of which are still ongoing. No mention is made anywhere in the Action Plan of the specific measures adopted by the EU to combat IUU fishing to date, nor those adopted by Regional Fishery Management Organisations since the onset of the 21st Century. Perhaps the Task Force is reluctant to admit that the US has lagged behind in the development of IUU-specific trade measures?

However, it now has a golden opportunity to seek convergence with existing regimes, to make a substantial contribution to their improvement and expansion, and to become a formidable co-architect and a leading engineer in the fight against IUU operations. To sacrifice such an important global role for the sake of more self-serving solutions may yet become a tragedy of similar proportions to the uncooperative disease that has for far too long affected our ocean commons.

Sources

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/2015-04-tackling-iuu-fishing_en.pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/EUs-motive-behind-yellow-card-queried-30259466.html

The post The US, the EU and IUU – Part 2 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Not long ago, I presented a paper at a conference, an experience many of the writers and readers of the blogs hosted in this site have probably had at some point.

In my presentation, I defended the main argument of my thesis: that Western European states promote international human rights law insofar as it fits in their idea of international order, not because they believe in human rights as a matter of justice. In this sense, I claimed that representatives of the English School of International Relations of the 1960s and 70s (so-called pluralists) were right when they argued that order is the main driver of the international society.

In her turn, one of my co-panellists made the argument that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is best explained by classical realism, that is, by the idea that the incorrigible human nature predisposes national leaders to mistrust each other, and that countries are forced to maximise their relative power as a result of the anarchic condition of the international system (please, excuse my simplicity). Not that it necessarily matters, but for the sake of full disclosure, she was a Ukrainian citizen.

There was a cocktail at the end of a day full of methods, theories, slides, metaphors, arguments and counterarguments. The Ukrainian co-panellist and I started to exchange some ideas while a thoughtful waiter made sure our glasses were sufficiently wet. As a good classical realist, she believed international law does not matter much. My view, on the other hand, had to be different, since part of my argument is built on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, “promises must kept”.

At some point, one professor from the hosting university got close to us. He wanted to make us feel welcome, which was very nice of him. He asked about the conversation topic, so we summarised our disagreement and explained that she located her argument in classical realism and I located mine (partly) in the first wave of the English School.

He smiled: “You two are quite retro, aren’t you?!”

He left pretty much right away, and we kept talking until the nice waiter decided to carry on with his life and the wine evaporated totally, a clear sign that it was time to leave.

But the professor’s comment did not leave me. I must admit I found it quite funny. And I still do. In fact, I think he picked the right word.

I hereby assert my right to be retro.

I wonder if you feel the way I do, dear reader (if you have got this far! Thanks, by the way), but I feel the pressure to follow a certain academic fashion, either because you are supposed to choose trendy topics, as if your PhD could fit in a tweet, or because you are encouraged to combine mixed methods, or, above all, because impact must drive your research.

I have no problem with any of the above, particularly with the idea of impact, if by it we mean that Academia should try to provide answers to the questions and dilemmas of the world today.

However, it sometimes feels as if that’s all there is in campus nowadays. Theoretical and interpretivist approaches would not be for this time. They were overtaken in the behaviouralist turn of the 1970s, and were left one lap behind by the post-modern, constructivist and critical turns of the 80s and 90s. Previous stuff is retro, not good for the quick and flashy taste of present times.

Well, I just refuse to accept that the interpretivism of classical realists or indeed of English School has been outpaced by other approaches in International Relations.

In university, if I have to choose, I’d rather be retro than sexy.

The post Retro, not sexy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

May 1975: Chinese Vice-Premier Li Xiannian and ECC Commissioner for external affaires Christopher Soames.

These days, the People’s Republic of China and the European Union celebrate the 40th anniversary of their diplomatic relationship. At the age of 40 one might assume that this relationship has indeed ‘grown up’ by now.

But has it, really?

Here are three indicators supporting this view and three against it:

FOR: China established diplomatic relations in 1975 with the – back then – European Economic Community at a time that is commonly dubbed “Eurosclerosis”, with European integration stalling and a Community that was far from establishing a common foreign policy. The move thus underlines the strategic importance for global politics that China has seen in the European integration project from the very beginning, and even during an era that was clearly dominated by only two Cold War superpowers.

AGAINST: Times have changed, notably the old bipolar
world has come to an end. But even if we believe theories
of a multipolar configuration, there are still doubts
whether the now much more mature European Union,
which even has a face to show to the world, can be considered
one of these “poles” or even an actor in global politics, with
institutional crisis having become a permanent feature
and 28 members attached to their individual prerogatives.

FOR: The trade relationship between China and the EU
is still the largest in the world. For several years now,
China is Europe’s No. 2 partner and Europe is China’s
No. 1 partner. Goods and services of over 1 bn EUR
per day are exchanged between the two economic giants.
Initiatives such as the new investment treaty and
possibly a free trade agreement are likely to foster
EU-China trade further.

AGAINST: If TTIP comes, the US-EU trade relationship may
outperform the Sino-European one. The fact that Europe and
China could not even find common ground in terms of China’s
WTO-status (market economy or not) indicates the level of
difficulty to turn negotiations into concrete outcomes.
What is more, EU-China relations are still based on an agreement
of 1985 as the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement failed.

FOR: Even if international relations are increasingly
dominated by business, investment and economics,
one cannot exclude politics. We’ve come a long way
over the last 40 years in terms of approaching each
other politically. Since 1998 China and the EU have
held annual summits. Politicians at all levels from
China and all member states and at EU-level constantly
meet each other. Chinese has become a popular
language to study and cities such as Beijing and Shanghai,
which host some of the finest universities worldwide,
have become attractive destinations for European
exchange students and vice versa.

AGAINST: Notwithstanding the exponential increase of
people-to-people exchange, a recent survey by the
EU-Asia Institute at ESSCA School of Management
and Oklahoma University has confirmed the negative
perceptions of Europeans towards China, notably the Chinese
government. It is noteworthy that strong trade relations do not
seem to help mitigate the situation: the Germans are among the
most skeptical Europeans vis-à-vis the Chinese.

This blogpost was published simultaneously on the website of the EU-Asia Institute and on Blogactiv.eu.

The post 40 years – the age of maturity? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

When the European Council – the institution that sets the European Union’s agenda on broad, strategic issues[1] – published its Declaration on the Environment on December 3, 1988, climate change was mentioned briefly and in passing.[2] In 2009, the year of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, the topic’s salience had risen dramatically. In that year, climate change made up more than 80% of the references to the environment in the European Council’s publicly-available Conclusions, and more than one-tenth of all references to policy issues.

This estimate of climate change’s increasingly important role is possible because of data compiled by the EU Policy Agendas Project. The project’s researchers have analyzed the European Council’s Conclusions sentence-by-sentence from 1975 to 2012 to identify which policy issues are discussed and when.[3] This information is available in a public dataset[4], which gave me an exciting opportunity to explore how much attention the Council has given to climate change in the last three decades. This post retraces how I mobilized the EU Policy Agendas Project data – and added to it – to explore patterns in the Council’s attention to climate change since 1988.

First, some context: in the EU Policy Agendas dataset, climate change is considered a subtopic of the broader “Environment” policy topic.  Between 1975 and 2012, the environment garnered an average of around 4% of the Council’s attention.[5] Overall, 32% of the references to the environment in the Council’s Conclusions are categorized as related to climate change. However, this average masks significant year-to-year changes. For example, in the six years from 1988 to 1993, climate change made up only 5% of the Council’s references to the environment. In contrast, from 2006 to 2011, climate change made up 74% of environmental references.

Figure 1. Council attention to the environment, by subtopic, 1975-2012 (1,679 total mentions). Source: Alexandrova et al., 2014.

Climate change: international negotiations and EU climate policy

Although the EU Policy Agendas dataset distinguishes between climate change and other environmental issues, it does not include analysis of the specific climate-related topics that the European Council discusses. Therefore, as a next step, I analyzed all mentions of climate change in the dataset and organized them into three overall categories: general statements about climate change, statements about the international climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and statements about European Union climate policy. Three examples of statements I placed in each category are given below in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Examples of European Council climate change-related statements in three categories: general climate change, international climate negotiations, and EU climate policy.

So which of these three categories gained the most attention? Overall, the international negotiations under the UNFCC garner almost 60% of the Council’s climate-related attention. The EU’s climate policies attract a further 25%, with 15% related to generic climate statements. Figure 4 below gives a historical perspective on these estimates (from 1997 to 2011). The first mention of climate change was in 1988 (not shown), but it did not become prominent on the Council’s agenda until after the international agreement on the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This same pattern was repeated in relation to the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, explaining the large increase in references to the international negotiations during that year.

Figure 3. European Council attention to climate change topics by year. Author’s analysis based on Alexandrova et al., 2014.

Which EU climate policy?

Finally, I wanted to explore which specific climate policies the Council discusses. In its 132 references to internal EU policy over the period 1988-2011, the Council focused on general references to policy (39%), the EU’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (22%) and the EU Emissions Trading System (20%). Other policies received 5% or less of the Council’s attention.

Figure 4. European Council attention to EU climate change policies. Author’s analysis based on Alexandrova et al., 2014.

Conclusion

As I mentioned in the introduction, the data exploration presented above has a few limitations. I have looked at the basic share of attention to climate change, and have not attempted to explain why we see the patterns that we do. Although I did not have the time to do so, more detailed analysis could examine the reasons why these patterns of attention exist. I also limited the analysis to only the references that were coded as climate change-related in the EU Policy Agendas dataset. Some climate topics were categorized differently (for example, ‘the global carbon market’ was placed in the energy policy category[6]). A broader analysis could attempt to track Council attention to those climate-related issues that were categorized as a different policy topic.

What I have found is, however, quite interesting. Taken together, this analysis suggests that in the mid-2000s, climate change became the dominant environmental issue on the European Council agenda. Much of the Council’s attention focused on the international climate negotiations, but with increasing space for EU climate policies like the EU Emissions Trading System. Although the EU Agendas dataset stops in early 2012, climate change is still clearly on the Council’s agenda (as evidenced by the 23-24 October, 2014 Council Conclusions, where the EU’s 2030 climate and energy framework occupied more than half of the document). It remains to be seen whether climate change will continue to play this important role on the EU’s environmental policy agenda in the years to come.

[1] Peterson, John and Michael Shackleton. 2012. The institutions of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. See pages 43-67.

[2] European Council Conclusions, 2-3 December 1988, Annex I

[3] Alexandrova, Petya, Marcello Carammia, & Arco Timmermans. 2012. Policy punctuations and issue diversity on the European Council agenda. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 69–88.

[4] Alexandrova, Petya, Marcello Carammia, Sebastiaan Princen, and Arco Timmermans. 2014. Measuring the European Council agenda: Introducing a new approach and dataset. European Union Politics, 15(1): 152-167.

[5] Alexandrova, Carammia, & Timmermans, 2012, pg. 75.

[6] “The strengthening and extension of global carbon markets” (March 9, 2007) was categorized under energy policy.

The post The rise of climate change on the European Union agenda: 1988-2011 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

As many of the Member States of the European Union painstakingly, and in many cases painfully, deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Commission attempts to facilitate and aid their recovery in any way it can.[1] The latest attempt to do so is the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic investment (EFSI). Unfortunately this new creation did not receive the collective round of applause across Europe that one might have expected. Quite the contrary. The reason is rather suspicious accounting. The money, apparently, not only has to come from somewhere, but rather astonishingly, from education. In the wake of last year’s internecine institutional strife in which many, including the Commission, battled valiantly to ring-fence key chunks of the education budget (ironically delaying 2014 Jean Monnet applications until the Parliament had approved the MFF), education and its ancillary R&D and innovations budgets appear to have become a prime target for ambitious, but as-yet ambiguous plans by Commission President Juncker. Is this particularly wise? The result may ultimately transfer €2.7 billion from Horizon2020 (currently 3.5% of the overall 2013-2020 budget), to the new EFSI to take effect between 2015-2020, with the apparently bulletproof intention of creating jobs, and boosting economic growth but at a cost of hundreds of millions of Euros to universities across Europe.

 Sustained growth and new jobs are, indeed, a key precondition for the wellbeing of all Europeans. There’s no argument there.  As Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness pointed out, “we need fresh investments in Europe and for this we need to mobilise extra private finance.[2]” The approach however, seems recklessly short-termist. Achieving investment, monetary fluidity and commercial momentum is a huge part of sustained attention to the education sector. Sustained investment of education is also a first-class method of in-house job creation in an ever-developing sector ultimately gives Europe a hard-won edge over other regions of the world, many of whom still focus on manufacturing rather than innovation and research. Achieving such benefits at the expanse of world-class research, teaching and learning, which itself is a genuine catalyst of EU innovation and competitiveness however makes little sense.

 So, congratulations to Britain. At a time when the UK is convulsing over its national future and international vocation, the danger to education funding, set against the backdrop of European recovery was the prime concern for the single largest UK delegation of university Vice Chancellors who at the end of April travelled without delay to Brussels to voice their concerns. Among them was Sir Ian Diamond, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, who argued that “excellence in research is being challenged in every way by these cuts.” Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, stated that the cuts would hit pure research in UK universities, who would then be unable to borrow money to replace lost funds despite the existence of a loan scheme designed for this purpose. “There are programmes in Horizon2020 focused on pure research that cannot get this money back,” he said, adding that “€2.7 billion is a lot to give up from a programme we know works”[3]. Similarly, Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of the League of European Research Universities, was involved in a similar lobbying effort in Brussels. “I’m not sure it’s going to end well,” he said. While lawmakers in the European Parliament are inserting text into the legal proposal to ensure a greater link between the fund and research and innovation spending, the window for finding a compromise on budget cuts is closing according to Deketelaere.[4] 

The British backlash is not, in this sense, an isolated one. A variety of other institutions lent their voices to the Commission’s proposal. A joint statement was released by Science Europe, the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), the European University Association (EUA), the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAR), stating that while they supported the Commission’s actions to boost economic growth and job creation through R&I investment, Horizon2020 remained “the only strategic European-level instrument supporting R&I activities” and actors. As the joint statement made clear: “Horizon2020, much like national R&I funds, is based on granting funds recognising that R&I actors such as universities, research performing organisations (RPOs) and research and technology organisations (RTOs) have specific business models requiring strong public support (that cannot primarily come from loans).[5] 

What informs the Commission’s perspective on this latest funding fracas? According to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “if Europe invests more, Europe will be more prosperous and create more jobs – it’s as simple as that.“[6] Thus, by re-allocating funds from Horizon2020 to the EFSI, Europe will “attract much more important sums that will then be reinvested in innovation,” thereby “delivering higher returns” utilising the same amount of money. Moreover, the Commission argues that “the overall amount of investment on innovation mobilised by the EU budget in the next years will be higher than with Horizon2020 only”. More importantly,  funding initially foreseen for Horizon2020 will allegedly not be lost, that is “not lost for innovation.”[7]  The arcane mysteries of bookkeeping aside, one can argue that ESFI-branded funding, according to the Juncker proposal will now be dispersed amongst different projects, which in real terms dilutes the funding designed to underwrite Horizon2020 projects.

ESFI and Horizon2020 simply do different things, and neither they, nor their funding structures can realistically reinforce each other. EFSI primarily aims at attracting private investors, while Horizon2020 funds mostly research undertaken by universities and research institutes and centres, many of which are publicly funded and work on a different “business model” than private companies. Even the briefest of glances at how universities do, or indeed ought to operate, makes this much clear. Therefore, regardless of the Commission’s enterprise-led discourse, projects undertaken by higher education institutions across Europe are likely to be negatively affected. Ironically, more astute research could have enlightened the commission on this point: a decent assessment regarding the impact of funds diverted from Horizon2020 would indicate which projects could potentially benefit from EFSI funding, and which (arguably the lion share) of projects must be ring-fenced within the original structures of Horizon2020.

Retrospective accounting is never popular. And infrequently effective.  The creation of new jobs may yield higher employment in the short-term, but it does not ensure that these new jobs will not be subsequently reduced or re-located elsewhere, or indeed that the commercial boost of the ESFI will not fall onto the presently fallow commercial ground of the Eurozone. Research is project-specific, dedicated, rarely fungible given its capital-intensive nature and largely conditioned exclusively to the institutional dynamic from which it first emerges, i.e. the presence of faculty-based facilities and higher-education expertise. Its purpose is not to underwrite a faltering Eurozone in raw funding from the bottom up but to boost the top-down ideas, projects, dynamics and outputs that are themselves the catalyst to enhanced productivity, jobs and competition.

What now? The usual standoff between ardent voices from a key sector attempting to persuade the Commission and key Member State governments to block the re-allocation of funds? Our hope lies, for now, in the European Parliament, where a considerable number of MEP currently oppose the idea of hollowing out Horizon2020 funding. We should remember that MEPs backed amendments safeguarding research funding for programmes like Horizon2020 being used for EFSI-supported projects. As MEP Van Brempt argued, “our researchers, our universities around the EU, need this money if we want to keep our future-oriented vision and to enhance the EU’s competitiveness and global strength.”[8] Last ditch hopes rest also with a motivated educational sector, and key voices being heard. Unfortunately, apart from the charge of last week, and some immediate media coverage, there has been virtually no public discussion or sustained media attention regarding the proposed changes.

Funding reallocations are hardly glamorous, admittedly. But a full-frontal assault on the funding structures underwriting innovation (much of it connected to sustaining Eurozone industry and commerce) is worthy of attention. Insights beget illumination, illumination sustains innovation. And innovation keeps things efficient and effective. Not tinkering with the most important hands-off budget in Europe. Universities have survived the storm necessitating corporate benchmarking and impact and knowledge exchange in bidding for funding; but hollowing out Horizon2020 and any related educational budgets risks substituting instrumental forms of performance for genuine progress.

 Sources

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/v-cs-go-to-brussels-to-lobby-against-cuts/2019654.article

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/eit-and-erc-expected-to-lose-millions-in-juncker-investment-plan/

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2014/14_124_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32257724

[1] With profound thanks to CCCU Politics/IR Graduate Michal Gloznek. Having gradauted with distinction from Politics/IR here at CCCU in 2014, Michal is completing the first year of his MPhil in Latin American Studies at the Latin American Centre, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford.

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[3] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

[4] http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

[5] http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

[6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[7] http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

 [8] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

The post Horizon 2020: EU investment offensive or offensive investment? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Talking about climate change should be made a priority. Around the world, there are public outcries about a scarcity of water, which is a basic subsistence that no one should be deprived from. Temperatures across the globe are rising, the number of available farmlands is shrinking, and in California there is a relentless draught. The western side of the country is feeling the effects of climate change full-on, leading many to debate if we are taking water for granted out here.

In this area, specifically, another drought a few years back melted the snowpack in upper Colorado, which resulted in shrinking the levels of water available regionally. The reservoir witnessed a grand scale of loss of water, and sadly the situation has never been any better. Across the border, Mexico is revolutionizing its approach to climate change: clean electricity, grid modernization, a greater promotion of more fuel efficient automobile fleets, weather forecasting and early alert systems, are all on their new agenda.

This new commitment aims to reduce the country’s gas emissions, black carbon pollutants by 2030. Mexico as a country is not responsible for plenty of gas emissions but nonetheless its drive towards combating it, was a positive and welcoming move about helping Earth’s atmosphere. These proposals were launched in co-operation with the United States, which brings me back to the climate change agenda here.

President Obama’s latest plan reveals that there is an ambition to cut 26-28percent of harmful gas emissions by 2025. This is a good slow step to recovery for the atmosphere, because although the percentages aren’t huge, they are still significant and a definite improvement. United States is presently leading the way for battling climate change. There is more wind power, solar power, a greater energy efficiency, clean energy, but there are still many areas that need to be worked upon, such as limiting the amount of harmful gas emissions powerplants should be permitted to carry on with.

Back home, there is a greater degree of transparency than can be found amongst all of the hopefuls in America: the EU and China have both committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions on the chart, but any higher involvement will mean that the United Kingdom, for one, will be left with nothing to contribute here, as a great use of carbon offsets begin to take precedence across its borders. The Labour Party, right before going to elections, clearly highlighted tackling climate change as a priority, quite unlike the remaining parties – they seem to find the concept of tackling climate change obtrusive. Plenty of new generation capacities are being built in the United Kingdom for the future, and Labour has pointed out that it stands on the side of renewable energies and clean coal.

The decarbonisation of the power sector is one key policy point that should be addressed, and the discussion here should be about the long-term cost involved: do we employ low carbon-deployment soon enough at the expense of a hike in energy bills? Providing a cleaner infrastructure should be more affordable than it is at the present. Energy bills for consumers can be brought down by employing energy efficiency practices at home. This would also help reduce fuel poverty, the need to pay for replacement infrastructure, alongside reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and effectively tackling climate change, much better.

The post Climate Change: Low-Cost Battles appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

In a surprise to nearly everyone, the Conservatives have won the UK’s 2015 General Election with a (small) overall majority. Following his audience with the Queen after the election, David Cameron reiterated his commitment to holding an in/out referendum on Britain’s EU membership. It seems therefore that we can now expect several years of negotiation, campaigning and debate on the UK’s future in the European Union.

Maduarte, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Renegotiation

Central to the Prime Minister’s pledge is the promised renegotiation of Britain’s terms of membership in the Union. He has stated previously that he wants to be able to recommend a vote to stay in the EU. However, to date we’ve had only hints of what the government hopes to achieve from a renegotiation.

Opting the UK out of the aim of ‘ever closer union’ and increasing the length of transitional controls for new Member States (such as temporarily limiting free movement with those states) have come up as possible demands. We’ll need the details of what the Prime Minister aims to accomplish from these negotiations in order to judge whether they are a success. The absence of clarity of course brings with it greater room for manoeuvre should talks with EU partners prove more difficult than hoped.

Referendum

The proposed timeline is as yet unclear, but negotiations would have to start soon. It is now mid-2015 and the Prime Minister has pledged that the referendum will take place by the end of 2017, leaving at most a year and a half to successfully complete a renegotiation and hold a campaign and vote. David Cameron might also hold the referendum early to capitalise on his electoral success and to head off any demands from within his party, further limiting the window to negotiate with other Member States and the EU institutions.

The specific details of the referendum will also have to be decided. An EU referendum bill will need to go through Parliament and, while the PM has a thin majority in the Commons, he has no majority in the Lords, potentially making agreement on the bill more difficult. Parliamentary process aside, this EU plebiscite will be only the third nationwide referendum to take place in the UK (the others being the EC membership referendum in 1975 and the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011).

The Scotland independence referendum can undoubtedly provide insights into the mechanics of holding such a vote. However, in some key respects, an EU referendum will be completely different. In the Scotland debate, many organisations and individuals remained neutral on the vote – this would not be the case here. The vast majority of the political establishment, the business community and civil society is very likely to come out strongly in support of continued EU membership. In this sense, the official landscape will be very lopsided. At the same time, UK public opinion on the EU is mixed, but it’s also consistently higher under the hypothetical that the government is successful in its renegotiation (a seemingly rare moment of trust in political leaders).

If Britain votes to leave

Should the UK electorate choose to leave the EU, a process of negotiation will have to begin with the EU institutions on behalf of the remaining Member States to agree Britain’s future relationship with the rest of the EU. The EU treaties (Article 50 TEU) now set out a procedure for a Member State to withdraw from the Union, giving some clarity in this respect. Negotiations can last up to two years and must be approved by a qualified majority of EU members and by the European Parliament. Unless talks are extended, after time elapses the UK would leave automatically, even if no deal is reached.

A plethora of matters would have to be discussed, including the UK’s future participation in the single market, which of course incorporates the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. In the current political context, free movement of persons would likely be a particularly challenging issue, affecting the rights both of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU. Britain’s role in every other EU programme, such as Erasmus, would all need to be agreed.

Such negotiations would be time-consuming, difficult and costly and require a great deal of expertise. Interestingly, the UK is scheduled to hold the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU during the second half of 2017. Britain may find itself at the same time chairing part of an organisation it is debating or has decided to leave.

In these circumstances, the question arises of whether a second referendum would be held to approve the UK’s new relationship with the EU. Alternatively, a vote might be held in Parliament to endorse the negotiated terms for the UK’s EU exit and whatever relationship might replace it. A second referendum would provide an opportunity for the electorate to confirm their support for the proposed alternative to membership.

If Britain votes to stay

If UK voters decide to stay in the EU, Britain’s membership would apparently continue much as before. Any provisions secured as part of the renegotiation would presumably take effect, giving Britain additional opt-outs or other special arrangements or indeed changing how the EU itself works.

A renegotiation could range from modest to radical, depending on the appetite of the rest of the EU to compromise. If the result falls short of dramatic change, it is unlikely to be from a lack of desire on the part of the UK government. It would be extremely ambitious to expect full treaty change under the above timescale. A more likely scenario is an agreement on principles and a commitment to include them in future treaty reform where necessary (some points might be achievable within the current treaties).

Britain is not unused to confrontation on Europe. Nevertheless, this chapter in its relationship with the EU could prove particularly high stakes. Possible outcomes include a more sustainable EU membership, a more distanced relationship with the EU or a situation not dissimilar to the status quo. The EU referendum result could have constitutional implications as well, at a time when the UK’s constitutional future is the subject of ongoing debate.

The shape of Britain’s future relationship with the EU will have a profound impact on its economy and its place in the world. The consequences of this debate will be numerous, and many will only become apparent over time.

Please read the comments policy before commenting.

Shortened link: britainseurope.uk/20150512

How to cite this article:

Salamone, A (2015) ‘Britain’s EU membership: The debate and the referendum, Britain’s Europe (Ideas on Europe), 12 May 2015, britainseurope.uk/20150512

The post Britain’s EU membership: The debate and the referendum appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Since Ryan Heath‘s been kind enough to mention all the work I do on this site on Brexit, it seems like a good opportunity to mention a new project I’ve been working on.

‘A Diet of Brussels‘ is a podcast about the referendum here in the UK on EU membership. In it, I want to try and explore the issues, to help inform debate and produce a more considered outcome. It’s not aimed at being ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but rather that raising the level of knowledge about the process and the key issues.

Each podcast is 5 minutes – for everyone’s sanity – and if you have a question to be addressed, then you can just send in a request and I’ll try my best.

I’ll happily admit my technical abilities might not yet be up to much, but it’ll improve over time, plus you all get to enjoy Berlaymonster’s excellent logo at regular opportunities.

So have a listen in: any feedback most welcome.

The post A Diet of Brussels appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

“…and on the third day, he rose again.”

Last week was both a triumph and a disappointment for UKIP. On the one hand, they secured almost 4 million votes in the General Election, a performance almost unsurpassed for a third party in the UK. On the other, the inequities of the electoral system meant that those votes only translated into a single seat. More problematically still, that seat was Clacton, and not Thanet South.

Prior to the election, Nigel Farage had been very clear: failure to win Thanet South would mean that he would step down, since he could not credible lead a party with parliamentary representation if he himself did not have a seat. This was repeated several times, enough to confirm that it was not a slip of the tongue, but a definite personal policy. It reflected both his public confidence about the party’s breakthrough in the election and his long-running dislike of running a political party.

Those with longer memories will recall 2010, when Farage stepped down as leader to contest Buckingham, citing an inability to do both jobs at the same time. His failure and that of his replacement, Lord Pearson, brought him quickly back into the fold. But even before that, Farage had long resisted the pressure to take over the leadership, preferring instead the libero role of media terrier and back-stage influencer: his election in 1999 to the European Parliament has long provided him with an alternative power and resource base.

Thus, no one should have been surprised that Farage followed through on May 8th, stepping down almost within the hour of being beaten into second place in Thanet.

More surprising was the jujitsu move of announcing that he would take the summer to rest and relax, before considering whether to stand again in a leadership contest in the autumn. I’ll admit that I kicked myself a bit at this point, for not seeing this as a way around his commitment to resign. It all made sense, in that even if there weren’t the seats, there were the votes and with the unexpected arrival of a Tory single-party government, a referendum on the EU was also now on the cards. In short, the prefect situation for Farage, bar that one small problem of his absence from Parliament.

Through the weekend there has been discussion of who might take over. Suzanne Evans had been proposed as interim leader, and was one of a handful of potential candidates. Perhaps tellingly, none of them made a big push to sell themselves, either to the media or to the party. Douglas Carswell – once again, the only UKIP MP – popped up to remind everyone that he had absolutely no interest in the job. Evans herself talked about the strength in depth of the possible candidates. But nothing comparable to Labour’s exertions, or even the LibDems.

Now, today, the big(ger) twist.

The party’s NEC released a statement saying:

“As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC. This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelmingly evidence that the UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go.

“The NEC also concluded that UKIP’s general election campaign had been a great success. We have fought a positive campaign with a very good manifesto and despite relentless, negative attacks and anastonishing last minute swing to the Conservatives over fear of the SNP, that in these circumstances, 4 million votes was an extraordinary achievement.

“On that basis Mr Farage withdrew his resignation and will remain leader of UKIP. In addition the NEC recognised that the referendum campaign has already begun this week and we need our best team to fight that campaign led by Nigel. He has therefore been persuaded by the NEC to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP.”

Typos (and a curiosity about what that ‘evidence’ might be) aside, the statement is very telling about the situation of the party right now.

Firstly, it calls into question the values that UKIP has fought on, of being different to other parties. It looks like a slippery way out of the situation: the NEC refusing his resignation, Farage changing his mind, expediency over principle. It is a gift to political opponents.

Secondly, it highlights the lack of options open to the party. Without Farage, they still lack anyone who is able to replace him. For all the growth in membership and the efforts to build more of a senior team (at least in terms of spokesmen), Farage remains indelibly linked to the party’s image. One might have imagined him taking a more independent role in the referendum campaign, but the party would have struggled enormously without him. The failure to get anyone apart from the one man who has been vociferous about not wanting to lead the party into the Commons means that will only continue.

Thirdly, it exposes the fragility more generally of the party. About a year ago, I wrote a piece wondering whether UKIP could survive 2015: the likely lack of representation, the absence of opportunities for making a mark. I’ve come back to this several times since, but today I find myself closer to sticking with that view than for a long while.

Momentum is a precious thing in politics, as much as it exists at all. The period since 2013 has been incredibly strong for UKIP, but without the bodies in Parliament to show for it, that momentum will be hard to maintain. Farage’s media charms cannot and will not last forever. Even the EU referendum risks pigeonholing the party back into its old form as a single-issue party, something it’s tried hard to combat. If Cameron does draw things out, then matters become even worse, as everyone struggles to interest the public in the details of a renegotiation.

Nothing last forever, and today’s events are only likely to make matters more difficult for both Farage and UKIP.

The post Nigel ‘Jesus’ Farage appeared first on Ideas on Europe.