Connect with us

Europe

Brexit: Passions Heating Up

Published

on

With the negotiations on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the home run now, a legally-bound Brexit is slated for March 29, 2019. By this date, a pertinent agreement must have been ratified by both the British parliament and those of all 27 EU countries. Thus, it should be agreed at the November or, at most, the December EU summit (December 17-18).

During the EU summit in October, its participants felt that not enough progress had been made in the talks even to discuss the final agreement in November. If no deal has been agreed by December, Britain will leave the EU without an agreement and  will have to switch to WTO rules, it has problems to adjust to.

British Prime Minster Theresa May expects to wrap up the talks by the November summit, but her government needs an agreement that could win parliamentary approval. Meanwhile, tensions between “Bremainers” (supporters of the UK’s continued stay in the EU, or at least of a “soft” Brexit) and Brexiteers (including proponents of a “hard” Brexit) are heating up. The latter fear that the Chequers plan, hatched up by Theresa May, a compromise EU withdrawal roadmap, would emasculate the very meaning of the UK’s divorce with the EU and become a Brexit in name only.

One lingering problem that remains unresolved is the status of the Irish border.  Theresa May heads a minority government, which depends on the support of a faction of 10 MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (DUP), who represent the interests of the local Protestant community and demand that all of the country’s regions enjoy the same status. Therefore, London can’t concede to Brussels’ requirement for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union and the single EU market (by having the customs border running across the Irish Sea). However, in the event of a “hard” Brexit where the entire territory of the United Kingdom is outside the EU and the Irish border is essentially closed, this would be detrimental to business and, most importantly, would rekindle unrest and terrorist activity in the United Kingdom. This would effectively unravel the 1998 Belfast Agreement, which established an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland thus ensuring a fragile peace between the region’s Catholics and  Protestants.

Even though in 1912 the Tories adopted the official name of the Conservative and Unionist Party, it looks like the Brexiteers are ready to sacrifice unionism by insisting on walking out from the EU customs union and the single market. It also seems that they could agree to the border running across the Irish Sea (while the DUP  fears a “creeping annexation” of Northern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland) or to a “hard” border between them in violation of the Belfast Agreement, which is something the European Union will not go for. The Brexiteers insist on restoring Britain’s full parliamentary sovereignty and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice with the possibility of signing trade agreements with third countries.

The Bremainers are equally unhappy with Theresa May’s Chequers plan. They believe that Britain will have to comply with all EU regulations without having a voice in collective decision-making, let alone other problems, such as freedom of movement of people, etc. Hence their demand for a second referendum on a deal with the EU, including the issue of Britain’s membership in the bloc, in a bid to reverse the results of the 2016 Brexit vote. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sallied his reputation during the war in Iraq, has reasonably noted that holding the 2016 referendum before determining the exit conditions was illogical, and called for a revote. His opinion is shared by ex-Premier John Major (Conservative) and  Deputy Prime Ministers Michael Heseltine (Conservative) and Nicholas Clegg (Liberal Democrat). They are joined by some members of Britain’s business community in their demand for a second referendum on the final deal with the EU (“Popular Vote,” People’s Vote).

An estimated 700 million people from across the UK rallied in London on October 20 calling for a second Brexit referendum in a major demonstration with the cost of their transportation to the capital paid for by many celebrities from the world of politics, business, sports and the arts.

Meanwhile, the idea of a revote is facing strong opposition from Prime Minister Theresa May who has to maneuver her way both at home and abroad in an effort to hold on to her job. Tory Brexiteers planned to hold a vote of no confidence in May as party leader and prime minister, but eventually backed off for fear of failing to get the support of a majority of Conservative MPs in parliament. Realizing this, they chose a tactic of obstructing her moves on the parliamentary floor.

Government-proposed bills relating to Brexit were tabled ahead of the summer recession with a margin of only a handful of votes (including by some Labour MPs). Teresa May still managed to hold on to her post of party leader and prime minister by clinching a compromise deal with the Bremainers and making concessions to the Brexiteers, warning both that her resignation would bring to power Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and pave the way for early parliamentary elections.

On November 8, DUP leader Arlene Foster warned that her party would not support a deal with the EU if it meant a special status for Northern Ireland , disguised as the EU customs union covering Northern Ireland, while the rest of the UK would end up in a kind of a customs union. Foster was responding to a letter she had received from Theresa May, which contained a hint of such a proposal, if no deal on the Irish border is reached during the transitional period until December 20, 2020. However, this interpretation was flatly refuted by Downing Street 10.

On November 9, Deputy Transport Minister Jo Johnson, the brother of Boris Johnson, and, unlike him, a Bremainer, became to 18th member of Theresa May’s Cabinet to resign over his opposition to the prime minister’s Chequers plan, which he called a “travesty” of Brexit. In a highly-charged resignation statement, he called for a second referendum.

“Putting the nation before a choice between two deeply unpleasant exits — vassal dependence or chaos — is a failure of British government, unprecedented in scale since the times of the Suez crisis,” Johnson said.

On November 10, media reported a meeting between the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn and MI6 head Alex Younger at the intelligence agency’ Vauxhall headquarters, where Corbyn was briefed on threats to national security. Observers view the meeting as a sign of impending early elections.

During the Labor Party’s annual conference in September, Jeremy Corbyn said that no option should be ruled out. However, on November 9, he rejected the possibility of a second referendum insisting that the government return to the negotiating table or resign – a clear pitch for snap elections.

On November 11, it became known that Brussels rejected May’s key proposal for an  “independent mechanism” for Britain’s withdrawal from the temporary customs agreement with the EU in the event of a negotiations failure during the transition period (in fact, on the issue of the Irish border). London’s proposal was aimed at preventing Britain from remaining in the customs union for an indefinite period and withdrawing from it only in agreement with the European Union: that is, “always obey the rules of Brussels”, with no right to any role in EU decision-making. Brussels, meanwhile, insists on the jurisdiction of the EU Court.

Moreover, the EU countries earlier said they wanted to examine the final version of the agreement prior to its publication and ahead of the EU summit. They fear that Britain could gain a competitive advantage if the European Commission caves in to London on the issue of a customs union to cover the entire territory of the country without any British commitment to comply with EU standards for labor, environmental and social relations and an obligation to open its seas to EU fishing fleets.

However, with the main sticking point hardly possible to resolve, both sides are preparing for a no-deal Brexit. Any version of the agreement will hardly sit well with Britain though. As evident from the high-profile resignations of the Johnson brothers, who hold opposite views on Brexit, the prime minister’s compromise plan does not suit either party. Further ministerial resignations are not excluded, fraught with a government crisis and the agreement’s failure to gain parliamentary support.

According to the newspaper Observer, there is one thing Britons all agree on: Theresa May’s plan is at stake. The negotiations are in their final stage now and the deadline is near.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Head of the Center for British Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IE RAS), International Affairs observer

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Is European humanity skin deep?

Published

on

At the border crossing between Ukraine and Moldova at Palanca, refugees stand in line. © UNICEF/Vincent Tremeau

When talking about security the most common line of thought tends to be war and the actors involved in the attack, however, all the people who had regular lives within those territories that are jeopardized are as important. With the increasing tensions and armed conflicts happening within the Twenty First Century, the movement of people searching for shelter has increased. More asylum seekers leave their home countries every single day and contemporary politics is still struggling to find a way to catch up. Europe, history wise, is the zone of the world that deals with more refugees wanting to enter the continent due to different factors: geography, proximity, democratic systems, level of development and more. Nevertheless, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, true sentiments towards refugees are now being put on display.

Even though all refugees are fleeing their countries because their lives are in mortal danger, authorities and government officials do not seem to care. Processes to apply for the refugee status are getting harder and harder. In Europe, to apply for a refugee passport, people are asked for identifications, online questionaries and many other unrealistic aspects that if not answered correctly, the whole process is cancelled. It is ridiculous to believe that when people are scaping in order to stay alive, they will take under consideration all these requirements to receive help, sometimes even from neighboring countries. Which inevitably leads to the following question: why are refugees accepted based on the legality of their applications and not of their status?

By 2016, nearly 5.2 million refugees reached European shores, which caused the so called refugee crisis. They came mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq: countries torn apart by armed conflicts. Similarly, with Russia’s invasion over the Ukraine in 2022, only few days deep within the fighting,  874,000 people had to flee their homes. Nonetheless, the issue seems to be that, for Europe, not all refugees are the same. When the refugee crisis in 2015 was declared, the European Union called for stopping and detaining all arriving refugees for around 18 months. There was a strong reluctancy from Europeans towards offering them shelter. On the contrary, countries such as Poland and Slovakia have said that Ukrainian refugees fleeing will be accepted without passports, or any valid travel documents due to the urgency of the situation. Therefore, stating with their actions, that Ukrainian refugees are more valuable or seem to be more worthy of help than refugees from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

Correspondingly, it is true that not all countries inside Europe deal and act the same way towards refugees, be that as it may, with the current refugee crisis it has been proved that they all share strong sentiments of xenophobia and racism. For instance, Hungary is a country that refused to admit refugees coming from outside Europe since 2015. In 2018, Prime Minister Viktor Orban described non-European refugees as “Muslim invaders” and “poison” to society, in comparison with Ukrainian refugees who are being welcomed without hesitation. In the same way, Jarosław Kaczyński, who served as Prime Minister of Poland and is the leader of the Law and Justice party, in 2017 said that accepting asylum seekers from Syria would be dangerous and would “completely change our culture and radically lower the level of safety in our country”. Furthermore, Germany in 2015 with Chancellor Angela Merkel in charged said that they would accept one million of Syrians. Although, as time passed, Europe’s solution was to make a deal with Turkey, who is not part of the European Union, to close the migrant route. Moreover, the promise of letting refugees integrate into German society was not fulfilled since. Seven year later, an impressive amount of refugees are still in camps and centers, with their lives frozen in time. Sadly, most European governments gambled towards the idea of sending them back once the armed conflict was over, without caring for the aftermath of war’s destruction.

The common narrative until now pushed by leaders, politicians, and mass media has been that Ukrainians are prosperous, civilized, middle class working people, but refugees coming from the Middle East are terrorists, and refuges from Africa are simply too different. Despite, refugees are all people who share similar emotions and struggle to grasp the fact that their lives may never be the same; having lost their homes, friends, family and so much more. Plus, being selectively welcomed based on their religion, skin color or nationality by the continent which’s complete rhetoric is universal rights, just adds another complex layer to the issue. Conjointly, the displacement of people due to war displays how regular individuals are always the ones who suffer the most in consequence to the interests of the few that represent larger powers. Hence, greed, envy, and cruelty are stronger than recognized, even in a developed continent such as Europe.

Continue Reading

Europe

What Everyone Should Know About Preventing Ethnic Violence: The Case of Bosnia

Published

on

Image source: srebrenica.org.uk

When the Balkans spiraled into violence and genocide in the 90’s, many wondered what caused this resurgence in militant ethnic nationalism and how a similar situation may be countered.

***

The 1990’s were a vibrant decade, that is unless you were living in the Balkans. 1995 was especially bad, as the 11th of July of that year marked the Srebrenica Massacre, which saw Serbian soldiers murder over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims over the span of two weeks. This shocked the world, as it was the first case of a European country resorting to extreme violence and genocide on ethnic lines since World War II. After World War II, the idea that a European country would resort to genocide was unthinkable. As Balkan nations continue to see the consequences of the massacre after over 25 years, it is increasingly evident that more needs to be done to curb ethnic violence.

We must first investigate key causes of ethnic violence. According to V.P. Gagnon, the main driver of ethnic violence is elites that wish to stay in power. Ethnic nationalism is easy to exploit, as creating a scapegoat is extremely effective for keeping elites in power. This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, which had previously seen high levels of tolerance and intermarriage in more mixed areas that saw the worst violence during the war. Stuart J. Kaufman argues that elites may take advantage of natural psychological fears of in-group extinction, creating group myths, or stereotypes, of outgroups to fuel hatred against them. While they may take different approaches to this issue, Gagnon and Kaufman agree that the main drivers of ethnic violence are the elites.

David Lake and Donald Rothchild suggest that the main driver of ethnic conflict is collective fears for the future of in-groups. Fear is one of the most important emotions we have because it helps secure our existence in a hostile world. However, fear can easily be exploited by the elites to achieve their personal goals. In a multiethnic society such as Yugoslavia, the rise of an elite that adheres to the prospects of a single ethnic group could prove dangerous and sometimes even disastrous. The destruction of Yugoslavian hegemony under Josip Broz Tito and the resulting explosion of ethnic conflict at the hands of Serbian elites in Bosnia underline this because of the immense fear this created.

Regions with high Serb populations in Bosnia sought independence from the rest of the country when they found themselves separated from Serbia by the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Republika Srpska was formed by these alienated Serbs. The leadership and elites in Serbia riled up the Serb population of Republika Srpska by stereotyping and demonizing Bosnian Muslims as “descendants of the Turkish oppressors”. This scared the Serbs in Bosnia so much so that they obeyed the elites of Serbia in supporting and fighting for the independence of Republika Srpska by any means necessary. As was seen in Srebrenica, they were not opposed to genocide.

We know how the elites fuel ethnic tensions to secure power as well of the devastating effects of these tensions reaching their boiling point. But what could be done to address ethnic conflict? David Welsh suggests that a remedy for ethnic conflict could be the complete enfranchisement of ethnic minorities and deterrence towards ethnic cleansing. This means that we must ensure that ethnic minorities are able to have a say in a democratic system that caters to all ethnicities equally. Fostering aversion to genocide is also vital toward addressing ethnic conflict because it is the inevitable result of unchecked ethnic conflict.

There is also the issue of members of ethnic groups voting for candidates and parties on ethnic lines. For example, in the United States, White American voters have shown to prefer White candidates over African American candidates, and vice versa. Keep in mind that the United States has a deep history of ethnic conflict, including the centuries-long subjugation of African Americans by White Americans.

Ethnic violence is horrifying and destructive, but it can be prevented. The first measure would be the establishment of a representative democracy, where members of all ethnicities are accurately represented. Another measure would be to make ethnic conflict and ethnic stereotyping taboo so that the average person would not resort to genocidal behavior once things go wrong. Lastly, making people feel secure is the most important step towards preventing ethnic conflict. If the people feel secure enough, they will not even need to think about ethnic violence. In short, while it is important to consider the differences of the various ethnic groups in a multiethnic society, it is vital that each group is kept represented and secure, free of any fears of subjugation.

While the case of Bosnia was extremely unfortunate, it provides an integral view into what could happen if perceived subjugation and fear of eradication reaches a breaking point. As was seen in Bosnia, ethnic violence can be extremely violent, resulting in untold suffering and death. That is why we must take necessary steps towards de-escalation and remediation of ethnic conflicts. These measures can, quite literally, save millions of lives.

Continue Reading

Europe

French Presidential Election 2022 and its significance for Europe

Published

on

Eugene Delacroix’s infamous painting “la liberté Guidant le Peuple” reminds the whole world of the July Revolution of 1830 that toppled King Charles X of France. The lady in the centre of the painting with the French tricolour still symbolizes the concept of liberty and reminds the whole world of revolutions and sacrifices made for freedom. France indeed has a long journey from revolting against “if they have no bread, let them eat cake” in 1789 to establishing a modern democratic society with the principles of “liberty, equality and fraternity”.  

France and the United States are rightly considered the birthplace of modern democracy. The French revolution taught the whole world lessons about revolution, freedom modern nationalism, liberalism and sovereignty. In 2022, France celebrates the 233rd year of Bastille Day which led to a new dawn in the French political system. From establishing 1ere Republique (1st Republic) in 1792, France has evolved and is currently under the 5eme Republique (5th Republic) under the constitution crafted by Charles de Gaulle in 1958.

Today, France is holding its presidential elections. As the French believe, ‘You first vote with your heart, then your head’, the first round of voting was concluded on Sunday 10th April and the Presidential debate on 20th April 2022. While the whole world waits for the 24th of April’s second round of elections and their results, this article attempts to understand the French electoral system and analyze Why French Presidential elections are important for Europe?

French electoral system

France is a semi-presidential democracy; the president is at the centre of power and Prime Minister heads the government. The president of the French republic is elected by direct universal suffrage where all French citizens aged 18 and above can vote, whether residing in France or not. In France, there is a two-round system in which voters vote twice on two Sundays, two weeks apart. This two-round system is widely practised in central and eastern Europe as well as Central Asia, South America and Africa.

In order to apply, a candidate needs 500 signatures of elected officials and they should be at least from 30 government departments. A candidate can be an independent or he or she can represent a political party. There is no limit to how many candidates can run for presidential elections. For instance, in 2002 there were 16 candidates, in 2017- 11 and in 2022 there are 12. While all the candidates have the right to equal media presence, the amount of spending on campaigns is also monitored; for the 1st round, the spending must not exceed 16.9 million euros and for the second round, it has been limited to 22.5 million euros.

This year, the 1st round of voting was concluded on 10th April while the second one is scheduled to be held on 24th April 2022. In the first round, all 12 candidates were eligible but for the second round, only two candidates who got the maximum votes are qualified for the second round.

A brief overview of French presidential candidates

Emmanuel Macron, five years ago at the age of 39, became the youngest French president of the French republic. In 2017, he broke the dominance of the two major French parties- Republicans and Socialists- by running a campaign “neither left nor right”. During the tenure of Emmanuel Macron, a hardcore centrist, France has witnessed a 7% GDP growth, unemployment dropped by 7.2% and the crime rate has fallen to 27%.

A far-rightist, Marine Le Pen is the other presidential candidate who succeeded her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as leader of the National Front (later National Rally) party in 2011. She was also contesting against Emmanuel Macron during the 2017 elections and before that in 2012, against Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande. While she embraced the party’s anti-immigration stance, she rebranded the party’s Euroskepticism as French nationalism.

This year, in the April 2022 elections, the current President of France, Emanuel Macron and far-right leader, Marine Le Pen are the two candidates with Macron running ahead with a lead of 4.7 per cent votes (Emmanuel Macron-27.8% & Marine Le Pen- 23.1%).

Why French Presidential elections are important for Europe?

While European defence is primarily assured by the US-led NATO military alliance, of which most EU states are members, French president Macron said,  “Europe needs to finally build its own collective security framework on our continent…”, advocating for a ‘European Security’ framework amid tensions with Russia over Ukraine.

On the other hand, Le Pen’s party has been looked upon suspiciously that it might have received financing from a Russian bank connected to the Russian President Putin. In an interview with French public radion, Le pen said, “It will be necessary diplomatically, when the war [in Ukraine] is over, when a peace treaty has been signed, to try to avoid this tie-up which risks being the largest danger of the 21st century for us,” she even further added, “Imagine … if we let the first producer of raw materials in the world — which is Russia — [create an alliance] with the first factory of the world — which is China — to let them perhaps constitute the first military power of the world. I believe that it’s a potentially great danger.” These statements only further reinforce the claims that Le Pen is more pro-Russia.

While Macron is anti-Brexit, Le Pen, on the other hand, has been known for her ‘Frexit’ plan, meaning, that she wanted France to leave the EU and abandon the euro. However, during the 2022 elections, it appears that Le Pen has softened her stance on Frexit. Another important issue pertaining to immigration has been significant not only for France but the whole of Europe. This issue of immigration is directly linked with the “economic and cultural concerns” which raises an important worry about immigrants’ socio-political and economic integration into the French society and abiding by the principle of laïcité (secularism with French characters).

As for Macron, he wants to create a “rapid reaction force” to help protect EU states’ borders in case of a migrant surge and is also pushing for a rethink of the bloc’s asylum application process. Macron also said that he urges the EU to be more efficient in deporting those refused entries. On the other hand, Marine Le Pen during her campaign stated, “I will control immigration and establish security for all.” It is pertinent to note that Macron has introduced strict laws pertaining to immigration and controlling Islamic radicalization. For instance, he introduced the bill to ban foreign funding to mosques.

What is more interesting to mention is the concerns about ‘energy’ in the presidential election. Evidently, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has gained more attention on the economic and geopolitical consequences of existing national and European energy supply chain choices. In France especially, there is a major rift between the pro and anti-nuclear power fractions. Interestingly, France has the second most nuclear power stations in the world after the United States.  Besides, in the last week of the elections, Macron has been attempting to win the hearts of the French voters with his proposal for a “complete renewal” of his climate policy. He has also promised to build up to 14 nuclear reactors by 2050 and regenerate existing plants. Meanwhile, Le Pen has promised to build 20 nuclear plants and aim to have nuclear power provide 81 per cent of France’s energy by 2050. While the current president Macron and far-right candidate Le Pen have both committed to the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming, it is evident that their approaches differ particularly on energy. Since France is Europe’s second-biggest economy, France’s climate policy could echo right across the EU.

Besides, in light of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis, Macron has played a significant role as he is the bridgehead for Russia and the US. He has also negotiated talks between Washington DC and Moscow and has also condemned the crisis by making the statement, “Russia is not under attack, it is the aggressor. As some unsustainable propaganda would have us believe, this war is not as big as the battle against, that is a lie.” Indeed, he has played the role of Europe’s de-facto leader vis-à-vis the Ukraine crisis. Nonetheless, with a marginal win in the first round against Marine Le Pen, winning the 2nd term is not as easy as it was five years ago.

More importantly, it is pertinent to note that France has the 2nd strongest military and 2nd biggest economy in Europe, further the 5th biggest economy in the world. France is not only the most visited country in the world but also ranks 1st in the global soft power index. It is also the founding member of the United Nations Security Council, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union which makes it an important player in European politics. Consequently, the policies of the French leadership not only direct the political, social and economic lives of the French but also reverberate in Europe.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Environment14 mins ago

More Industrial Hubs to Accelerate Their Net-Zero Transition

Four leading industrial clusters in the Netherlands, Belgium and the US today announced that they are working together with the...

Environment2 hours ago

Global Food Crisis Must Be Solved Alongside Climate Crisis

Instability in Ukraine is threatening to intensify an already precarious global food security outlook. Increasing prices of fertilizers and inaccessibility...

East Asia4 hours ago

What China Does Not Know about India

Indian authorities said on April 30 that they discovered Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi Group had made illegal remittances to foreign...

World News5 hours ago

Von Der Leyen Condemns ‘Russia’s Blackmail’ on Food and Fuel

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, denounced Russian aggression and its use of “hunger and grain to...

Tourism6 hours ago

New tourism study shows need to prepare for future headwinds, as sector shows signs of recovery

The World Economic Forum released today its latest travel and tourism study, revealing that the sector is showing signs of...

nato russia nato russia
World News6 hours ago

Stoltenberg: Freedom Must Come Before Trade

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, in a keynote speech to the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022, told participants that the...

World News7 hours ago

Pedro Sánchez Champions Freedom, Democracy and a Post-Fossil Fuel Era

Spain will welcome Ukrainian refugees, support sanctions against the Putin regime and provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine “as long as...

Trending