Connect with us

Europe

Italy’s political crisis after Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap] fter the start of the famous so-called “Second Republic” the thirteen governments, which succeeded one another in Italy, have lasted approximately three years at the maximum. Like Matteo Renzi’s, indeed the longest government in the “Second Republic.”

Obviously assuming that the goal of the Italian Second Republic was to have “governments which could last a whole legislature”, it was certainly not reached.

Not even the goal of avoiding the multiplication and increasing power of the political parties represented in Parliament was achieved, considering that from nine, on average, they decreased to eight – not a great success for those who wanted a British-style bipartisan system?

But why a British-style bipartisan system? Our political history is much more complex than the history of a country, which only assassinated a king in 1642.

Not to mention the countless electoral lists.

It is worth recalling that the collapse of the First Republic occurred between 1992 and 1993, but its seeds had been sown long before, precisely in 1987.

At that time, the dissolution of Parliament led to a sort of “institutional gridlock” due to the coincidence of the election of the President of the Republic and Parliamentary election.

Finally, at the time, a representative of the Lombard League was elected to the Senate, while the Mafia in Palermo channelled its votes to radicals and socialists with a view to sending a signal to the Christian Democratic Party (DC).

It was the phase of the “maxi-trial” against Sicilian Mafia bosses, resulting from judge Giovanni Falcone’s investigations.

Later Italy recorded corruption, as well as the fragmentation and regionalization of political parties, the fall of the Communist Party – an unsaid pillar of the system – the metamorphosis of the judiciary power due to globalization and the increase in extra legem law sources.

Hence a new international Lex Mercatoria expressed directly by the markets and not focused on Parliament and courts.

Italy was collapsing as a result of corruption, of the ante litteram scrapping of political parties, of media-style cheap leaderism, of increased autonomy of markets and civil society. It was the Italy “born out of the Resistance movement” or, more exactly, of the political parties: the Christian Democratic Party (DC), which had been created in 1943, shortly after the “Camaldoli Code”; the Communist Party (PCI), which during Fascism remained underground, with all its leaders hidden in Moscow; the Socialist Party (PSI), which survived during the Fascist period; the Social Democratic Party (PSDI), which was created as a result of an anti-PSI split in 1947; the old Republican Party (PRI), which went into hiding during the Fascist period; the Italian Social Movement (MSI), a national right party which was founded in 1946, and other political groupings generated by Italy’s history, social struggles and life.

Matteo Renzi knows nothing about these parties and their history – not even about the history of the Christian Democrats, his party of origin.

Renzi, like his predecessors, is the result of the Italian structural crisis, but he is the result and not the solution.

As to the labour market and employment policy, Renzi implemented the Jobs Act and, with a provincial and narrow-minded mentality, he used English to define it – as if it were a law by Barack Obama, the true patron of Renzi’s naive Americanism.

The Jobs Act assumes that there is a matching between labour supply and demand, as if the two markets were potentially equal, but it is mostly based on a reduction of the tax burden for employers, with a view to shifting from fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts.

Obviously the system will create new jobs as long as the tax relief lasts.

In early 2016, hirings with open-ended contracts fell by 33%, while the turning of fixed-term contracts into open-ended contracts decreased by 30.5%.

Once finished the doping of the tax rebate, everything will go on as before.

Last November, Minister Madia’s Public Administration reform was declared illegal by the Constitutional Court. Certainly it is a specific law on the relationship between the Ministry and the State-Regions Conference, but it is anyway a reform drafted by a former TV professional.

Moreover, civil servants will be obliged to return from holiday if the staff is missing. And this is only one facet of the problem.

Youth unemployment, Renzi’s real propaganda obsession, is equal to 44.2%, the highest level since 1977.

The increase of taxes, which were already so high as to block economic development even before the Florentine leader’s government, was evident, albeit hypocritically and surreptitiously hidden in wider-scope laws.

First and foremost, the VAT increase which, with the so-called regime dei minimi – a sort of facilitated tax system – will rise from 5% to 15%.

Moreover, before falling as a result of the mad and reckless constitutional referendum, Renzi’s government planned to increase the usual petrol excise duties, over and above increasing the regional tax on productive activities (IRAP) retroactively.

Not to forget the increased taxation on pension funds, raised from 11.5% to 20%, in addition to the duty on the many classic and antique cars.

On the spending side, the same holds true for the endless forms of “pocket money” that Renzi offered as a gift to voters: 80 euros to everybody; 160 euros to low-income families with at least two children; a 500 euro bonus to the pensioners who had been subjected to unlawful deductions; a 500 euro bonus for the young people aged at least 18.

An indiscriminate all-round distribution of taxpayers’ money to all social groups that the former Prime Minister wanted to “buy”, with the disco-style habit of appearing youthful no matter what (500 euro to teenagers) and the buying of the elderly people’s votes with pension increases, rather remote indeed. Let us wait for them to die but, in the meantime, let us make them vote in “the right way”.

Two voting areas which, as is worth recalling, are more unstable than the others.

Hence we had a “child” in power, such as those described by Roger Vitrac in his 1928 surrealist play Victor, or Power to Children.

But, at least, in Vitrac’s play we were saved by the children.

Hence a group of Ministers cobbled together in a makeshift manner, yes-men or yes-women who only had to obey the orders of the leader or his Florentine coterie known as “Il Giglio Magico”.

Young Ministers of a children’s government, as in the 1938 movie Boys Town with Spencer Tracy.

A bunch of provincial and narrow-minded young people, who were so lucky to come to power, because in fact no one wanted that power or had the right stuff to gain it.

This is exactly the structural crisis of the Second Republic, much more severe and faster that the First Republic’s, which has been fully exposed by Renzi’s government.

Foreign Minister Gentiloni, born as the Former Minister and Rome Mayor Rutelli’s dogsbody or lackey, as indeed his Prime Minister, received with admirable handshakes all the Premiers of Third World countries, but he was superlative and unrivalled in his “political statements”.

He called for a war in Syria to rescue the Christians (on April 7, 2015); he made no assumptions about the Italians kidnapped in Libya (on July 20, 2015); he was severely ambiguous about Italian troops in Libya, initially described as at war there and later just entrusted with the task of “training Libyan forces” (which ones?) (on May 16, 2015); he ridiculously proclaimed Italy to be a “superpower ” (on April 4, 2016).

Not to mention the indescribable former Foreign Minister Mogherini, later hastily sent to Brussels as EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the worthy successor to the equally ineffable Lady CFSP, Baroness Catherine Ashton, who went to Al Sisi immediately after the coup that had ousted the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt and asked him to “respect the election results” and restore the ousted President Morsi in power.

Federica Mogherini urged the political Islam to enter Europe, considering that “the radical Islam is a legitimate force of European politics”, and went on with many other pleasantries and nonsense (on July 7, 2015).

Fortunately, in Islam, there are no women who can rise to certain levels of power.

When I think of Federica Mogherini, I almost feel like appreciating the sharia.

With reference to the persecution of Christians by Isis, with her mere degree in Political Science, Mogherini said that “the issue needs to be clarified and tackled” (on January 20, 2016).

Not to forget her note according to which Turkey could enter the EU if only it abolished death penalty.

And what about the rest? Yet another concession to Chancellor Merkel’s diktats, considering that Angela Merkel had brilliantly stated the same. However, at least Chancellor Merkel is materially interested in Turkey’s EU membership, whereas this is not Italy’s case.

In short: a government made up of young people who, like all children, can also be extremely bad, with a Prime Minister who used the intelligence services to “blacklist” his enemies (Renzi’s enemies, not those of the intelligence services), with a former all-around basketball coach, Luca Lotti, and other Ministers, aides and associates literally found by chance in the street.

Therefore, like all the other governments of the Second Republic, Renzi’s was another step – probably final – towards Italy’s economic and social decline.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

All Those Croatian Presidents

Published

on

Stjepan Mesic

Since those days when it emerged from the ruins of the Yugoslav federation as an independent state, Republic of Croatia had 4 Presidents – 4 men and a Lady President. The first one whom only death, in the opinion of many, saved from the International Hague Tribunal, but who is still (or because of that?) called by his admirers “Father of the Nation” was a self-proclaimed “Mesiah”, who although “only” a President acted as master and commander. One of his closest collaborators remembers how Franjo Tudjman asked him once: “To whom should I leave Croatia?” For a monarch without heirs from the 19th century a quite appropriate question. But, for the President of a modern state that found its way to the international scene at the very end of the 20th century – unthinkable!

On the wave of the desire for changes, which grew more and more as dark sides of the war for independence and of the privatization and transition started (but only started) to emerge, Tudjman was after his death succeeded by a former highly positioned politician of his Party who broke all ties both with Tudjman as well as with the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), because he could not and would not support their policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before doing that he, alas, following the official HDZ policy, gave a couple od “antologic” statements which he found himself in a position of explaining even after years. However, Stjepan Mesić displayed enough honesty and political courage to admit these statements and escapades and to apologize for them, saying they were wrong and out of place. He won the presidential elections twice and although he is by his enemies from the right still branded both as a clown and as a traitor, he initialized key processes aimed at putting Croatia on the world scene again, after it was, at the end of Tudjman’s rule, practically put into international isolation because of his policy towards minorities, especially the Serb one, and to human rights in general.

Mesić opened the way for returning antifascism (although already put into Constitution) to the place it deserves in the Croatian society; without any reservations he labeled fascism and its Croatian version (Ustasha) as evil and as a crime; he opposed the historical revisionism that was present from the very beginnings of the Croatian state;  ha changed the attitude towards minorities, in the first place, the Serb minority and he favored the return to Croatia of those Croatian citizen of Serb origin who fled the country during the war; he laid foundations for a everyday’s normalization of the relations in the region; he opened Croatia to the world, presenting it as a partner willing to cooperate on the terms of full equality with everybody. Despite diminished powers, because Croatia switched after Tudjman’s death from semi-Presidential to parliamentary system, he knew how to resolutely say “no”, when Croatia’s interests were at stake (for example resisting the pressure to make Croatia part of the so called Coalition of willing put together by the US for the purpose of invading Iraq). And he never ceased repeating that he is a citizen-President whose job is not to rule, but to serve.

After his 10 years in office a new tenant came into the Office of the President – university professor and composer, candidate of the left, Ivo Josipovic. There can be no doubt that he too wanted to be a “real President”, that he even had some ideas how to do this (let us forget his statement that he intends to compose an opera, while being President), the fact remains that he – objectively – managed to halt or to freeze many of the positive processes started by his predecessor; though at the same time some of them he simply copied, repeating for example in the Israeli parliament the excuse, on behalf of the Croatian state, for the crimes committed by the Ustasha against Jews. If he is going to be remembered for anything, it will be for being a weak President, who – by not being able to define himself and by not understanding what politics is all about, practically put in the position of the President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Because, apart from the HDZ voting machinery, people did not vote for her, wanting just her as the new President, but because they were, to put it mildly – fed up by Ivo Josipovic. He did not know how to make real contact with citizens (contrary to Mesic, who was a virtuoso in doing this) and the citizens did not understand him – for example when he announced that he will run for the second term with he concept of a new Constitution.

The first woman-President in the short history of Croatia, presented a respectable C/V (minister for European Integration, Foreign minister, ambassador to the US, assistant to the Secretary General of NATO). But, very soon it became apparent and it remained apparent through her 5 years in office that she came totally unprepared and unfit for the position. She was intoxicated by the ceremonial accompanying the position of the President, she was literally in love with the military component of the function (although the President is the Supreme commander only in times of war), she loved uniforms and weapons and, above all – she was obsessed – by moving her Office from one town to the other (together with a ceremonial military unit that was present during the playing of the national anthem and raising the flag upon her arrival; in normal circumstances it is just the President visiting this or that town, or region of Croatia, which was – but without the pomp upon which she so insisted – done by Mesic, by Josipovic, even by Tudjman. 

She will be remembered by stubbornly repeating some notorious lies (such as that Croatia/Yugoslavia was behind the Iron Curtain, or that Croats were not allowed in times of Yugoslavia to call themselves as Croats, or that the Ustasha salute (For homeland – ready) was an ancient Croatian salute (here she eventually admitted, most probably under pressure from outside, that she was wrong, blaming one of her advisers for this!). She will not be remembered for her policy, even not for the “3 seas concept” she so loved to speak about, although it is not her concept at all. But she will be remembered as an enthusiastic cheer leader during the World soccer championship, as somebody who embraced sweaty soccer players in their wardrobes and – as her term in office started to come close and closer to its end – as somebody who liked to sing in public (even “discussing” this with some media, objecting that they reported she does not know how to sing, although – she said – “I sing well”). Finally she will be remembered by a series of public appearences which made many people to raise their eyebrows and than to start laughing at her (“My friend, the American general”, or “they say it’s not possible, but I tell you it is possible; I have already arrangements with certain foreign countries that Croats will go there for schooling, return after that to Croatia and work on-line from their homes for 8.000 Euro monthly”, ending with “I will stay in Croatia, although I have offers from all around the world”. She loved to sing a song whose text portrays part of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Croatia, she boasted that the pop-singer, icon of the political right whose most popular song begins with the Ustasha salute “For homeland – ready!” is her favorite singer, and let us stop here, although there would be much more. She missed no opportunity to equale antifascism (calling it communism) with fascism and she loved to remember how both of her grandparents were partisans, but turned into anticommunists right after the victory in 1945. About her being sent to school in the US she said that her father sent her there and not Tito (“forgetting” that Tito was at that time several years dead already).

She made peace with the HDZ prime minister, because she needed her party’s support in the election campaign. All the HDZ politicians started to repeat, as parrots; “She will win!”. She lost. If she manages to get into history, than history will remember her as somebody who transformed the role of the President into a stage act and managed, instead of policy that should be waged at the top of the state, to present a rather bad “patriotic” reality show.  

It is high time for “realpolitik” to replace this reality show. Yes, we might expect some surprises from the President-elect too, some of them might not please those who voted for him. But, one thing is sure; because of Zoran Milanović nobody who really cares for Croatia and for Croatia’s reputation in the world, will not blush, or feel ashamed (which was not the case in previous 5 years). Milanović in not an “unknown”, both in Croatia and in the world, neither as a person, nor as a politician (chairman of the Social-democratic party, Prime minister). It is a known fact that he too, sometimes, speaks and even acts faster that he thinks, putting himself in the position to explain afterwards what he really wanted to say or demonstrate (the most benign example is his jumping from a APC and falling to the ground before TV cameras, and saying laconically only: “I wanted to boast”.

In retrospect: the first “mesianic” President saw himself as the owner of the country and behaved accordingly. The second, and history will one day admit this, was a President, as Presidents should be. The third did not know how to be the President and the fourth, the Lady President, understood and performed her duty  as a cheap reality show. One should hope, the time is ripe for a “realpolitiker”, someone who is fully aware of the fact that he is the President of a small country, but at the same time aware of its (meaning his) responsibility for the state of democracy in Croatia, for the situation in the region and for Croatia’s place in the world. Voters do remember Milanovic from previous times. So it is no surprise that on internet one can read such a commentary: “Good luck, don’t slip, because we will not forgive.”

Continue Reading

Europe

US naming of first corrupt Bulgarian official is a joke

Iveta Cherneva

Published

on

Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the first ever designated Bulgarian official barred from entering the United States over corruption, under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

The newly implemented non-judicial mechanism to “fight corruption” in Bulgaria had many here in high hopes. Would the US really name names and help Bulgarian society clean up by pointing the finger and sanctioning the most corrupt and dangerous elements?

Well, don’t hold your breath.

The glaringly political and self-serving designation disappointed many here. The US government black-listed a Bulgarian judge and the only thing he is known for is that he allowed a pro-Russia society activist to visit Russia and receive an award from Russian President Putin, while the pro-Russian activist was under investigation over espionage charges.

The decision struck many here as something out of an outdated Cold War scenario. 

The US is not really fighting corruption with this move — it’s just settling old scores with a pro-Russian judge. Actually one does not even have to be pro-Russia to ask themselves if a decision we don’t like automatically becomes corruption. The US has not provided any evidence for corruption — whether the judge was paid, whether there were any shady dealings, etc.

The US has a long way to go if it wants to show that corruption rather than pro-Russian interests is what it is really after in Bulgaria. As this is just the first designation in a long list to come, the US Embassy in Sofia would do well to address actual corruption that Bulgarian citizens are sick of. That’s the way to win over Bulgarians.

Continue Reading

Europe

Britain after Brexit: Between US and EU

Published

on

On January 31, the United Kingdom left the European Union, after three years of exhausting negotiations in which the terms of the “divorce” were postponed several times. Now, Britain is setting sail free. A staunch supporter of the exit, Prime Minister Boris Johnson claims that breaking away from the EU will “liberate the country from a terrible” yoke “.” Johnson promises the British “a decade of prosperity and opportunity.” A major advantage to the breakaway is believed to be the prospect of a new rapprochement between Britain and the United States. How realistic are these expectations?

US current President Donald Trump spoke strongly in favor of Brexit from the very beginning. He called for a most dastic form of severing relations between Britain and the European Union, in return for which he promised the British a comprehensive free trade agreement in the shortest possible time. In September last year, British media reported that Trump and Johnson had allegedly agreed to sign a free trade agreement, which “will become the largest-scale deal the United States has ever reached.” According to these reports, the final signing of the contract is scheduled for July 2020. The terms of the transaction will not take effect immediately but after the Brexit transition period, which, according to the current agreements between London and Brussels, will come to a close in December 2020.

On January 25, US Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin said he was optimistic about the possibility of concluding a US-British free trade agreement this year. According to Reuters, Donald Trump also tends to consider the feasibility of reaching an agreement with the UK before the US presidential election in November. Britain, in turn, expects to use the agreement with the United States as an argument during trade negotiations with the EU. Both London and Washington declare their intention to “substantially expand” bilateral trade. Meanwhile, Mnuchin, along with a number of American Congressmen, have already made it clear that they deem unacceptable London’s plans to introduce a tax on digital services by such American IT giants as Facebook, Google and Amazon. So differences in the economic sphere are already in place now.

The doubts of the American establishment are also clear. Ten years ago, optimists believed that Britain’s future was unimaginable without the EU. Simultaneously, “special relations” with the United States enabled London to become a major moderator and, perhaps, the only Western country capable of streamlining the predictably inevitable weakening of American hegemony. At least, it was done with minimal losses for the entire “golden billion”, and in case of success it made possible extending its leading position among other world players for the foreseeable historical perspective.

When the “impossible” – Brexit – became reality, it became clear that the appearance of yet another “variable” in Europe could be beneficial for both Washington and London. The United States gets an effective tool of influence on Europe – it will make use of the differences between London and a number of East European countries traditionally oriented at the UK, and the other leading EU capitals. And the United Kingdom gets a chance to return to the “top of the world” with the support of still strong, but not so “strategically astute” or “politically flexible”, America.

By now, skeptics say, the nature of British-American relations has changed irreversibly. The trade deal could become a major stumbling block. In the first place, Trump has so far signed only one truly fundamental trade agreement – a new version of NAFTA. He is always seeking to dictate his will – “particularly, if the partner is weaker or in need.” “And for the United States, Britain is, at best, a satellite, not an equal partner.” In addition, with less than a year to go before the US presidential election, voters expect Trump to step up protective measures, rather than make concessions. Secondly, a full-scale trade agreement is subject to approval by the Congress. Trump is currently at “war with the Democrats.” Many Republicans may also come forward with requests to secure significant concessions from London. These could be farmers, the Irish lobby, who would want concessions over the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and representatives of IT corporations.

Thirdly, a trade agreement with the EU is more important for London. According to the BBC, British exports to the EU are 2.5 times higher than to the United States. The EU share in UK imports is almost 5 times higher than that of the US. The European market is closer and larger, while the overseas market is much smaller. Technically, an agreement with the European Union seems to be more achievable, given that now both parties have “common rules and standards”. Moreover, success in trade negotiations with the EU will deprive London of the opportunity to make substantial concessions to America. Finally, comprehensive trade agreements are prepared for years, if not decades. There could be exceptions, of course, for example, a kind of “mini-transaction” confined to a particular industry. However, such deals “will be problematic to present to the public as overwhelming success of Britain on the global scene and they will hardly make an adequate compensation for the break with the EU.” It is also unclear whether London is willing to pay the political price. For example, Trump may require unconditional support in the confrontation with China, or Iran, as a “bargain”. Or he may ask for a rejection of the “digital tax.” As a result, it will not be a trade agreement, but only a “transaction concerning trade”.

Meanwhile, in geopolitical sphere, relations between London and Washington are far from perfect too. In the summer of 2018, the UK expressed interest in establishing cooperation with the participants in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The latter is an upgraded version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump, in the very first weeks of his presidency, renounced as “not beneficial” for America. Britain’s position also clashes with that of the US on the preservation of a nuclear deal with Iran. Moreover, in addition to supporting Europeans, Germany and France at the diplomatic level, Britain was among the initiators of a European payment mechanism to circumvent US sanctions against Iran (INSTEX), which, however, has yet to become functional.

According to The Economist, in January this year, British Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace publicly questioned Washington’s credibility as an ally. Present-day Britain, he said, is far from always ready to fight on the side of America. Wallace also expressed regret over his country’s “very strong” dependence on the United States for military aviation, as well as for electronic intelligence and surveillance. “We need to diversify our options” in these areas, – summed up the head of the military department of the United Kingdom. British experts were quick to remark that there had been no statements of this kind in London’s official statements of the past 70 years. The British leadership is still hoping to pursue the country’s own programs of creating advanced weapons, including fighters and spy satellites. Finally, what causes London’s growing concern is Trump’s “contempt for the allies” and the difference in strategic priorities. One British diplomat commented in The Economist as follows: “We fear Russia more than anyone else, while the US is wary of China. ”

What triggered the bulk of political and trade differences between London and Washington is London’s intention to include the Chinese company Huawei into the suppliers of equipment for fifth-generation telecommunications networks. The United States accuses Huawei of acting on orders from official Beijing to “spy” on residents of Western countries and even damage communications systems. Washington has been doing its utmost to convince all its allies that it is true. Last December the US introduced an amendment to the 2020 defense budget under which the government is to cut intelligence data exchanges with those allies that have endorsed the use of Huawei technologies in fifth-generation networks. The amendment will first concern anglophone countries that form the Five Eyes alliance whose members are involved in tight-knit cooperation on intelligence data exchanges and integrating electronic espionage infrastructure. Washington commentators describe the amendment as a “warning signal”.

The head of the US State Department Mike Pompeo did his best to put pressure on Britain, including in the course of his meeting with the head Foreign Office in Washington in January. However, what the US has achieved so far is Britain’s reiteration of its commitment to its former position under which Huawei will be kept away only from the “most sensitive” in terms of security elements of British IT and communication infrastructure. The US executive and legislative branches of power have reacted differently. The day before Brexit, on January 30th, Pompeo visited London, where he assured the British about the inviolability of privileged relations within the Five Eyes group. According to Reuters, Mike Pompeo expressed optimism over the prospect of signing a trade deal. Simultaneously, a number of Republican Senators have signaled unavoidable obstacles in the way to a bilateral trade agreement, which will entail London’s decision on 5G.

Overall, it looks like we are in for a long period of struggle for influence on Britain between Europe and the US. President Emmanuel Macron of France, along with the European Commission’s Head of Task Force for Relations with the UK Michel Barnier and the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrel, have made it clear that the EU is planning to maintain close ties with Britain, including in «security and defense», and in addressing global issues in a multilateral international format. «The EU and Britain share history, geography, culture, common values and principles, and in international relations they are both committed to a multilateral approach on the basis of rules». Rules in this context mean European rules and standards. 

As for the US, Washington began to move «away from Europe» in the days of George Bush Jr. and continued to do so under Obama. For many Europeans it has long become clear that Trump’s European policies of the past three years smack of the old imperial principle of “divide and rule”. Apparently, the EU leadership have grounds to believe that the British will quickly come to the understanding that the current “world order” is impossible to preserve. The times of «symphony» between Thatcher and Reagan are a thing of remote past. Donald Trump is but a sign of the changes, not their cause. As said above, some principal figures in the Johnson Cabinet have said openly that the pattern of relations with America which came into existence after 1945 is going into the past. It looks like the prime minister is secretly hoping to organize a geopolitical “auction” in which two coasts of the Atlantic will bet for new terms of a union with the Foggy Albion. Right now, however, as Brexit critics say, after leaving the EU, Britain is playing the role of «a minor empire squeezed between two major ones». Is this the kind of future breakaway supporters want for their country?

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Energy News10 mins ago

IEA gathers first meeting of network of experts on oil and gas methane regulation

The IEA held a workshop in January 2020 that brought together more than sixty members of industry, policy and regulatory...

Travel & Leisure2 hours ago

7 Spring Break Destinations That Aren’t the Beach

After winter, spring break is the welcome start of warmer weather, longer days and sun worshippers flocking to popular beaches....

Defense4 hours ago

Assessing India’s Enhanced Air Defence Shield with reference to Pakistan’s MIRV Capabilities

Since the last few years, India has been continuously carrying out an extensive military modernization program aimed at enhancing its...

Newsdesk8 hours ago

Empower Women to Fight Corruption: Dr Wan Azizah

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail called for more engagement and collaboration “to ensure women from all...

EU Politics10 hours ago

EU Interreg programme celebrates 30 years of bringing citizens closer together

The year 2020 marks 30 years since the start of Interreg, the EU’s emblematic programme that aims at encouraging territorial...

Americas12 hours ago

Impeachment & Intervention: Where American Foreign Policy Goes Wrong

To any ordinary American citizen, it’s well known that government spending is spiraling out of control. The U.S. budget deficit...

Eastern Europe14 hours ago

President Zelensky at the MSC 2020: An Epistemological Shift toward Reconciliation

On Saturday February 15, Ukrainian President Zelensky reiterated his pledge to end the conflict in the Donbas during his tenure,...

Trending