European Union

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

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

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

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

The Sun’s report asserted:

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

And The Sun added,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said:

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

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

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

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

Observed The Guardian at the time:

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

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

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

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

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

And the Handelsblatt business daily commented:

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

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

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

 * Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

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

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

_________________________________________________

• Why I won’t use IPSO

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) March 9, 2016

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

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) March 15, 2016

 

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

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/e7e8cf2a-e9c3-11e5-8008-bc764e092fac_3.42_thumb_169_1457946856_1457946856_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Federica MOGHERINI, EU HR for foreign Affairs and Security Policy, attends a High-Level ministerial meeting on Syria, in Paris.

Download this video here.

I must confess to something of a bias when it comes to the Johnsons, because I rather like them. All of the Johnson family behave as if they feel obliged to be bright, and are often exuberant but with the typical nonchalance of the British upper class. I am a friend and former colleague of Stanley Johnson, Boris’s father and a convinced European. And I later had the opportunity to know Boris while he worked in Brussels as a reporter for the Telegraph. He was popular, exceedingly amusing and a uniquely colourful character in what is often a very grey setting.

“The problem with the Brexit supporters is not their vision of Europe, but their vision of Britain”

Many commentators have condemned his support for Brexit as mere opportunism, but I don’t agree. In taking this stand, he must of course have had his political future in mind. But I do think his decision is sincere, as his scathing view of Europe has old roots. Brussels often leaves a strong impression on those who become involved in European affairs. Some, like the late Lord Cockfield, arrive sceptical and leave passionate Europeans. Others are favourably disposed but leave disappointed. Nothing of that sort seems to have happened to Boris. As the person who led the work of the European Commission on the single market, I strongly resented some of his pieces, such as those on euro-standard condoms or the threat to Britain’s prawn cocktail-favoured crisps. I soon realised it was useless trying to explain to him that these stories were all rubbish; he knew it, but he was merely expressing his contempt for a construction he didn’t care to understand.

Boris says that he loves Europe and Brussels, but his ‘love’ reminds me of the condescending British aristocrats who in the 18th Century took a grand tour of the continent, daydreamt in front of old ruins, enjoyed the music, acquired a few paintings by the great masters and went home ever convinced that they should keep their island politically disengaged with the continent. So his position is hardly surprising. The Boris ‘manifesto’ in the Telegraph is long and convoluted, strangely so for such a sharp mind. Perhaps this was because he wanted to introduce an element of intellectual sophistication to a side of the debate that is frequently accused of offering nought but an expression of guts feelings. He must know, though, that a referendum is to a large extent a matter of guts, and his bet may sadly be the winning one.

“Self-delusion is not the stuff with which greatness is made”

Maybe the problem with the Brexit supporters is not their vision of Europe, but their vision of Britain. Many that I have met are little Englanders with the imperial dream of the country ready to defy Napoleon, Hitler and the entire world, for they dislike the Americans as much as they dislike us. For them, forty years of involvement with the continent has only been a source of endless compromises, and they hate compromises when the foreigners happen to be in a stronger position. One could respect, even admire, them if it wasn’t for their blind complacency about the state of a country that no longer rules the waves, or indeed anything else. Self-delusion is not the stuff with which greatness is made.

If the British vote to leave the EU, we on the continent shall feel regret not only for the turmoil that follows, but also because we shall lose the contribution of the best diplomatic service in Europe and possibly the world. All we can do is tell Boris Johnson that if he loves Europe, as he claims, we in turn love Britain: the country with a splendid past and an uncertain future at best. The continent does not only love Britain for its historic democracy and all that, but also for the legacy of the Beatles, the Stones and others among the best musicians of recent times. Incidentally, they were not upper class at all.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – BackBoris2012 Campaign Team

The post Boris Johnson’s ‘love’ for Brussels appeared first on Europe’s World.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 169 - Draft motion for a resolution on the 2015 Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

As Barack Obama brought the recent US-ASEAN summit in California to a close, the US President explained how the two sides had advanced their ‘shared vision of a regional order where international rules and norms, including freedom of navigation, are upheld and where disputes are resolved through peaceful, legal means.’ His implicit reference to the South China Sea was no less than a declaration that the United States will not stand idly by as China unilaterally changes the maritime order. Such a statement has only strained tensions further.

It’s no surprise there are anxieties about the dispute in South China Sea; the stakes are very high. Though unlikely, the global economic chaos created by a war in East and Southeast Asia would be unimaginable, and would result in decades of human tragedy. Even a brief conflict could bring world trade – 50% of which passes through the region – to a jarring halt. To many in Washington and Beijing, the South China Sea dispute has become a proxy battle for influence over Asia. But ASEAN, arguably the world’s second most successful regional organisation after the European Union, has a pivotal role to play in this contest. It will take careful engagements from all three parties to resolve the disputes peacefully. Ultimately, the South China Sea dispute presents these players with three distinct tests, on the rules and norms, on resource management and an operational test.

“America’s credibility in advocating freedom of navigation and the law of the sea is reduced when Washington itself refuses to be party to the convention”

The rules and norms test requires that China respect international law when addressing the South China Sea dispute. As a peaceful and responsible permanent member of the Security Council, China – which has judges sitting in the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – must not turn to the threat or use of force as a resolution to the maritime dispute. The world needs assurance that the newly-built islands in the South China Sea are not being militarised and are not to be used for power projection in the region.

The United States, which promotes freedom of navigation and adherence to global norms, must lead by example. The most effective way for the country to do this would be by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). America’s credibility in advocating that nations abide by the principle of freedom of navigation and the law of the sea is reduced when Washington itself refuses to be party to the convention. The deteriorating situation in the South China Sea provides a much-needed push for the United States to get its act together.

ASEAN members involved in the dispute must also shore up the importance of rules and norms – smaller nations dealing with larger ones must rely on international norms and rules to advocate for themselves. To accomplish this, parties in the South China Sea dispute that have not done so need to streamline their claims under international law. They must clearly state the features, the names, the exact location and the legal basis of their claims. Practices incompatible with UNCLOS, such as Vietnam’s excessive baselines, need to be ended.

“The six countries of the Coral Triangle Initiative have demonstrated that collaboration is possible without having settled maritime boundaries”

The resource management test requires the individual claimants themselves, the greater ASEAN community and possibly the United States to collaborate on the conservation of marine resources in the South China Sea. The absence of a regional fisheries management organisation in the disputed area has led to there being no information on the depletion of fish stocks or the deterioration of the sea’s health. This could lead to food insecurity, increase the poverty of coastal communities and increase illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

While the idea of joint development of mineral resources is wishful thinking, the six countries of the Coral Triangle Initiative – two of which, Malaysia and the Philippines, are South China Sea claimants – have demonstrated that collaboration to manage the health of the largest coral reef on Earth is possible without having settled maritime boundaries. The security, safety and environmental management of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore do not require a definitive maritime boundary or even the successful settlement of sovereignty disputes.

“No one country can handle the myriad of global threats or the burden of international order”

The operational test requires the United States, ASEAN and China to devise a mechanism to reduce the risk of collision or conflict at sea. The ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting would be an excellent platform to establish a practical mechanism aimed at defusing tensions, preventing escalation, managing maritime emergencies and increasing operational safety. The three parties could establish sub-regional naval collaboration for joint exercises and joint operations other than war to create, strengthen and maintain trust. The sharing of experiences in regional maritime law enforcement could also create the needed trust.

Each of these three tests will need to be passed by all those involved if they are to avoid the South China Sea dispute becoming an historic tragedy. No one country can handle the myriad of global threats or the burden of international order by acting unilaterally; not even the collective power of the five permanent members of the Security Council can do so. International challenges require international cooperation and solutions.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Times Asi

The post Avoiding tragedy in the South China Seas appeared first on Europe’s World.

Welcome to Friday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

A protestor holds up a copy of Poland's constitution during Thursday's demonstration

Almost since the day it retook power in October, Poland’s Law and Justice government has courted controversy over policies party boss Jaroslaw Kaczynski has said are part of a plan to “fix” the country. At the centre of the squabbling has been a law passed in December that overhauls the way Warsaw’s constitutional court operates, changes that critics say limits its ability to strike down government policies it finds objectionable.

The law has drawn scrutiny from Brussels, which launched its first-ever review of a member’s government for possible violations of the EU’s “fundamental values” after the measure was passed. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, which was asked to review the law as well, came down hard on Warsaw in a draft decision that was leaked to a Polish newspaper. This week it was the turn of the court itself, which ruled that the laws curbing its powers were unconstitutional. But in a decision that stunned many, Poland’s prime minister, Beata Szydlo, announced she would not allow the court’s ruling to be officially published, meaning it will not be enforceable. “This is not a judgement, it is a political position,” said Poland’s foreign minister.

Read more

Presentation by Shingo Yamagami, Director General, Japan Institute of International Affairs
Presentation by Vineta Mekone, NATO Strategic Communication Centre of Excellence
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP