European Union

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Geoffrey Van Orden

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Feedback is important for a research project, and it is central to student project work at Roskilde University, both as peer-feedback between students and feedback from supervisors.

Feedback enables the students to engage in a dialogue with peers and with their supervisor about how to progress with their project ideas, develop coherent research strategies and write up research projects.  We all know from our own research how useful it is to get comments from colleagues and often we hear ‘you have at least two papers in this paper’. Giving and receiving feedback enables the students to reflect on how to improve their projects. The Danish word for feedback is ‘konstrutiv kritik’ (constructive criticism), which have negative connotation for many. It is important that feedback is giving through an open dialogue, where comments are received as suggestions for how to develop the project further.

The problem area seminar is one of the first opportunities the students have for receiving feedback on their research statement, a two-page document outlining the group’s research topic, research questions, proposed methods and possible theories. The problem area seminar consists of three to four groups and one supervisor. The supervisor’s role is to facilitate the feedback between the groups and to give comments to all the groups.  In advance of the problem area seminar, the students receive a guidelines about what they should emphasise in their feedback. Not all students are familiar with giving feedback, so the guideline aims to help the groups identify gaps in the research statements.  The aim of peer-feedback is for students to learn how to give feedback and learn from other students. Moreover, strong groups sometimes complain that the feedback they received was not useful. Other students get confused if the supervisor present during problem area seminar is not their supervisor, and might offer different advice from their supervisor. Indeed, one of the key lessons of receiving feedback is to understand which comments are useful – just think of some of the comments we sometimes receive from reviewers!

Importantly, the groups are required to take contact to their supervisor and set up the first supervision meeting. The onus on the students to contact their supervisor is instrumental in the pedagogical principle of being responsible for own learning. However, some supervisors contact their groups first to let them know of his/her availability.  In supervision meetings, students often ask questions about the role of methodology, which reflects the interdisciplinary element of the degree, where the BA programme requires the students to carry out interdisciplinary projects. For example, the second semester project must include two of the four basic courses (political science, sociology, economics and human geography) thereby ensuring that the projects are interdisciplinary.

Students might write a sociology project one semester and an economic project another semester, as a result they will have supervisors from different disciplines. Similar the students become good at navigating between different disciplines, but they struggle to understand that interdisciplinary projects do not involve one economic chapter and one political science chapter. Indeed, I spent considerable time during project group formation and teaching qualitative methods to explain that inter-disciplinary research is a marble cake not a layer cake! Hopefully, the students got the message and have developed inter-disciplinary research statements and thus projects.

Other students just want to study one subject and struggle to develop interdisciplinary research projects, here, the role of the supervisor is important to make sure the students fulfil the project requirements. Moreover, the supervisor helps the students with literature suggestions, gives comment on draft chapters, and helps the students to use the feedback from the problem area seminar constructively in their project progress. Overall, feedback, both from fellow students and supervisor, aim to give the project group suggestions for finishing their project.

The post Student projects: giving & receiving feedback appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

In my last blog entry of 1st March, I talked about the possibility of Hungarian opposition political parties’ uniting forces against Fidesz in this General elections of 8th April and have speculated if Fidesz would live up to its statement that it would not use ‘Soros’ in their election campaign.  So what happened in the past four weeks? Did the opposition political parties form alliances? Is Soros still part of Fidesz’ election campaign material? How is Fidesz doing in the opinion polls? Is Jobbik losing ground on this election trail? Are Greens and the Socialists doing better? What pledges have been made in relation to the EU?

So far the opposition political parties did not form any alliance between them. The major opposition political party Jobbik refuses to negotiate with the Socialist Party (MSZP) and the Democratic Coalition, but suggests that it could talk to the LMP Green and the Momentum after elections. Likewise the Left and the socialist parties reject to have any form of interaction with Jobbik. I believe this means that the opposition political parties will not unite against Fidesz, at least not before the elections, but there is hope for post-elections.

George Soros is still at the top of agenda in Fidesz’s election rallies and is the most mentioned about during this election campaign. This will probably continue to be the case until the end of the elections. At the same time Fidesz remains to be the most popular in the opinion polls, it is polling around 50 % among the decided voters; hence is very likely to form the next government. However this is not because the opposition political parties are least popular, but because they are most divided, making the opposition significantly weak, unable to have the necessary number of seats to stand strong against Fidesz. Also it is not because Fidesz is pledging policies that would make some serious changes in the way the country is run, but because it is turning a blind eye to Hungary’s social, political and economic problems. On the contrary, immigration and Soros are the two single and intertwined issues that make up the rhetoric adopted by Fidesz at this election campaign. When it comes to immigration, Fidesz’s Viktor Orban can go as far as to reject EU’s migrant quotas and the United Nation’s Global Compact on Migration plan in its current form. He said that if migration becomes a human right, this would be a recipe for destroying the Earth, leading to a primitive humanity.

Whereas Jobbik that was once recognised as a radical and nationalist political party, which has now shifted to centre-ground, happen to find Fidesz’s position on immigration and Soros as extreme, suggesting that Fidesz is using Soros as a tool to scare the people and distract them from important problems. Furthermore Jobbik makes innovative policy promises that both could attract young people and could benefit the Hungarian people. For instance Jobbik’s leader Gabor Vona promises instead of party-political or communications political governance, they would introduce expert governance, and who would give the leading positions to those who have the most relevant expertise. And he proposes to introduce e-referendum and e-consultations as a means for soliciting social feedback. Political commentators predict that Jobbik will do much better in the election than it is expected, undecided voters are likely to opt for Jobbik this time, it is suggested. I think however that the unsavoury past of Jobbik will make voters think twice in the voting booth, while doubting sincerity of Jobbik’s leadership.

The Green LMP and the Socialists do not entirely seem to be part of this election campaign; there is not much media coverage on what they are proposing or on what they are up to. There may be many reasons for this, but this is not the right platform to speculate. I think these parties most probably will maintain their low profile/small party position in the Hungarian politics post-elections.

As for European Union, 4-6 weeks ago, Orban refused to take part in Macron’s consultation on the future of the EU, but now he said that ‘let’s hold them and each nation should make the best use of its national practices’. It is promising to see that Orban can change his mind on this matter and be part of the crowd. Moreover while the EU wanted to decide on the migrant quote issue in the current cycle of the European Parliament, Orban wishes that he could prevent that from taking place, pointing to the European Parliament elections of 2019, suggesting that the anti-immigration forces are to make advances and change the face of the EU on immigration. Fidesz is already forging alliances with other EU anti-immigration political parties such as the Italian Five Star Movement and the Austrian Social Democratic Party and Freedom Party. This means that if Fidesz wins this general election, which is very likely, then its anti-immigration stance and rhetoric will only get stronger and more effective with its newly formed alliances both at domestic and at the EU levels.

The post Ahead of Hungarian General Elections—issues, pledges and campaign rhetoric (II) appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

It’s one year ago today that Prime Minister Theresa May triggered the Article 50 notice for the UK to leave the EU.

29 March 2017 will not be celebrated in history. It’s the day that Britain’s interests were betrayed.

Almost all of Theresa May’s current cabinet said during the EU referendum campaign that Brexit would damage Britain, make us poorer, put our security at risk, and could undo our own union of the four countries of the United Kingdom.

But the Prime Minister and her ministers went ahead with Brexit anyway, against their own strong advice to the nation not to.

This is how I reported the triggering of Article 50 this time last year:

TRIGGER HAPPY THERESA HAS BETRAYED THE COUNTRY

SHE’S GONE AND BLOODY DONE IT – the one thing she said just one year ago would not be in Britain’s best interests. She’s triggered Brexit.

Theresa May has gone against her own advice that Britain shouldn’t leave the EU.

Not just her advice. But the strong advice of 70% of her cabinet ministers, who also less than a year ago urged the country not to Brexit.

Why are they doing it? Because people told them to? Does that make any sense? If people told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Would you volunteer to do it?

Because Mrs May and most of her cabinet have volunteered to do something they all said would be bad for Britain. In doing so, they are betraying our country.

They are doing something that, by their own admission, will not be in the nation’s best interests, but on the contrary, most definitely against our interests.

Two-faced Theresa today formally wrote to the European Union to trigger Article 50, starting two-years of gruelling divorce proceedings that could forever ruin our relations with the mainland of our continent.

She should listen once again to the speech she gave on 25 April last year. Then she said:

“I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.”

And she also said then:

“My judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.”

As for replacing the trade we do with the EU with other markets, she asserted that this would be an unrealistic route. She said:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

And there were other serious risks too.

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”

And other risks too.

“Outside the EU, for example, we would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which has allowed us to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years, and bring 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals to Britain to face justice.”

And leaving the EU, she said, could lead to the disintegration of the EU, resulting in “massive instability” with “real consequences for Britain.”

In addition, Brexit might prove fatal to “the Union between England and Scotland”, which she did not want to happen.

And if Britain left the EU, she argued, we might not be successful in negotiating a successful divorce settlement.

Explained Mrs May,:

“In a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44 per cent of our exports is more important to us than eight per cent of the EU’s exports is to them.”

She added, “The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market.

“We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined.

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

And in summary, Mrs May said:

“Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores.”

Most of Theresa May’s cabinet were of the same view: Leaving the EU would be against Britain’s interests, it would represent a disaster for our country.

• Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond said: We will be safer, stronger and better off if we remain in the EU.

• Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: I passionately believe it is best for us all and our country if we remain a member of the EU.

• Justice Secretary Liz Truss said: I don’t want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe.

• Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon said: Make no mistake – a vote to Leave would be payday for Putin.

• Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt said: We will be better off and more secure by remaining in the European Union.

• Education Secretary, Justine Greening said: Staying in the EU is smart diplomacy and smart economics.

• Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley said: If you want a stronger, safer, better off Britain, then the positive choice is to vote Remain.

• Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green said: Leaving the EU would cause huge economic damage.

And so on, ad nauseam. The Prime Minister, and the majority of her government ministers, strongly urged Britain to remain in the EU in the interests of the country’s prosperity and security.

So, what’s happened to them all? Were they stupid then and clever now?

No.

Before the referendum, these politicians said what they sincerely believed to be in the best interests of Britain. But after the referendum, these politicians are saying and doing what they insincerely believe will be in the best interests of themselves.

Future history books will have a collective noun for them. Hypocrites.

Fortunately, it will prove to be their downfall.

Unfortunately, it’s likely to lead to our country’s downfall too.

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

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

The post They said Brexit would damage Britain appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Brexit has two-faced double-standards and nobody knows what or who to believe.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, says that three million EU migrants in the UK are too many; they take our jobs, they cause a burden to our housing and hospitals; they have zero value.

On the other hand, she said in an open letter to all EU migrants that we need you all; we’ll be poorer without you; please don’t go.

Yesterday, Home Secretary, Amber Rudd MP, said that the government was “committed” to reducing the numbers of EU migrants, despite Theresa May’s Christmas letter to them all saying the country would be poorer without them.

Ms Rudd told MPs:

“I’m still focused on making sure we reduce net migration to sustainable levels.”

But in an open letter in December to all EU migrants in the UK, Theresa May wrote:

“I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make – enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life. I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.”

So, what do you believe? That too many EU migrants have been coming to the country, or that we need them all and we want them to stay?

No wonder the country is confused. Brexit means forked-tongue nonsense.

Mrs May previously said that Britain has too many EU migrants, and we need to bring numbers down to a trickle.

But if that had happened, we wouldn’t now have the three million EU migrants that she recently said the country can’t do without.

Many people believed Mrs May when she said Britain has too many EU migrants.

Many voted for Leave for that very reason. They voted so we would have fewer migrants.

They voted because Mrs May said she’d bring the numbers down.

But then just three months ago, Mrs May said we needed all the numbers of EU migrants that are here.

There weren’t too many after all. The country will be poorer without them.

Does Mrs May and her Brexit government really know what they’re doing?

They’re messing with people’s heads; and their hearts, and their lives.

If Mrs May sincerely thinks that all the hard-working, upstanding, law-abiding, tax-paying EU migrants in the UK are needed and wanted, why didn’t she say so before the EU referendum?

Instead, at the Tory conference immediately prior to the referendum, she said the current numbers of EU migrants in the UK are of zero value. Yes, she did.

As Home Secretary, in her speech to the Tory Party faithful in October 2015 she said, “..at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero.”

High immigration to her then represented the three million EU migrants in the UK.

The front-page headline in the Telegraph the next day was her mantra that migration is “harming society”, causing ‘thousands of British people to be forced out of their jobs.’

She said then that, “when immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society.”

She added:

“It’s difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope. And we know that for people in low-paid jobs, wages are forced down even further while some people are forced out of work altogether.”

She blamed too many foreign students (how can she possibly call students migrants?) and too many EU migrants.

She said, “The numbers coming from Europe are unsustainable and the rules have to change.”

She quoted her party’s manifesto, ‘we must work to control immigration and put Britain first’.

But just this last Christmas Mrs May said,

“As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am proud that more than three million EU citizens have chosen to make your homes and livelihoods here in our country.”

She add, “I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay”.

Oh, so now those three million EU migrants are welcome here, when Mrs May previously made clear that she didn’t want them here (at least not in those numbers).

Mrs May said at Christmas that she is proud that those three million EU migrants made their homes and livelihoods in our country

But she previously said they were stealing our jobs and putting pressure on our schools, hospitals, homes and wages.

Does Mrs May and her cabinet really understand what is true and untrue?

The fact is that Mrs May, her government, and her Brexit are entirely two-faced.

Brexit involves double standards. Is that really what Britain voted for on one summer’s day in June 2016?

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

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

The post Brexit is one big double-standard appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Implementation of the EU external financing instruments: mid-term review 2017 and the future post-2020 architecture
Establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union
Conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part
Accompanying resolution to the consent on the Conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part
Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Uzbekistan, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Framework Agreement between the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the EU
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Delegations

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

A while ago, a friend from university days contacted me. He is mentoring a number of people in his organisation and was finding it hard to put his hands on resources that would address the specific issues his women colleagues were having. Although we haven’t seen each other in a while, he had followed my recent life changes and thought I would be able to help. I have managed to put a few things together, but I thought it might be useful to collect such material together, to help make it more available and useful for others. So I had the idea to put together this blog. As I find items, I will put them up. If you know of something good that isn’t here, please send it to me and I will add it to the platform.

Mentor People Who Aren’t Like You (HBR)

3 Thought-Provoking Questions To Ask Your Female Mentor (Forbes)

The Men who Mentor Women (HBR)
Male champions for women can be a tricky issue (I personally have deep reservations about the White Ribbon ambassadors, for example). This article outlines specific behaviours by male champions, mentors and coaches within organisations that lead to outcomes for the women they are supporting. Food for thought for any mentors I would say.

Sheryl Sandberg’s top 5 ways for women to support women (People)

The Conscious Style Guide (Zapier)
This guide encourages you to think about how to use language in an inclusive way. It covers gender as well as many other issues.

Women Are Using a New Hack to Take Certain Words Out of Their Emails (ATTN)
Did you know there was a Google plug-in to take the word “sorry” out of your emails?

How The Women On Obama’s Staff Made Sure Their Voices Were Heard (HuffPost)
I loved this story. A straightforward way that women can work together to tackle some of the challenges they face in the workplace.

Gender as a factor in negotiating raises (Nylon)
Interesting (and pretty shameful) article showing how important a factor gender is in negotiation. I’m doing some work on this for another project. I think we need to be teaching girls about worth,value and negotiation before they get near a job.

It takes hard work (Women’s Agenda)
Sometimes it’s easy to describe a problem, but less easy to work out how to solve it. This article describes how one CEO has gone about increasing women in her organisation, and provides some useful food for thought.

Five ways to boost your career opportunities (Talented Ladies’ Club)
I’m always wary of articles that start “Five ways to…” but these tips make good sense.

Five words that are killing your career (Women’s Agenda)
Another piece on the importance of language.

How to talk about female Olympians without being a regressive creep – a handy guide (Guardian)
How to write about women in [insert industry here]. This article is about the Olympics but could be about many other areas/industries.

Women tell us about the first time they they felt powerful (Vice)
There is incredible power in storytelling. Even simple stories can pack a punch. What are your stories about when you felt successful/powerful/energised? Thinking back to those times can help you identify what made them, which can help you rediscover that mojo.

Women, leadership and the myth of merit (SMH)
Whatever you think about quotas, this article raises the important question that the concept of merit is itself subjective. A useful reminder for women feeling overlooked in the workplace I think.

Six communication tips that promote workplace diversity (FastCompany)
Mentoring a woman in your organisation isn’t just about what she can do. It’s also about what everyone can do. This article suggests some communication actions that we can all think about in terms of how they impact on those around us.

Non-threatening leadership strategies for women (Cooper Review)
Satire helps too. This “advice” for women about how to be non-threatening is great…

Why don’t we trust angry women? (Psychology Today)
A psychology study suggests that when women lose their temper, they lose their influence with it. Does this mean women shouldn’t lose their temper in the workplace? That’s the inference but not the finding. But it is worth bearing in mind that the impact the anger will have might not be quite what you think.

Just Not Sorry app launched to help women by removing apologetic language from emails (ABC)
Someone has developed an app to stop women saying those little phrases that undermine them. I’m a horror for “Does that make sense?”. In my head I”m trying to make sure that I don’t move on without people having grasped what I’m saying, but I am fed up of hearing myself say it and totally see how it can come across as if I am not confident in what I have said.

How Our Idea Of “Strong Women” Unintentionally Hurts Female Leaders (Fast Company)
Language is incredibly important. I love this article about the problematic nature of the adjective “strong”. Thinking about language, including how you talk about yourself, seems to me to be a core part of coaching/mentoring.

The best reason yet to increase women in business leadership (Forbes)
Evidence is growing that having women leadership in an organisation is good for the bottom line. Women founders attract more investment, corporations with women at Board and C-suite level out-perform those with a more homogenous profile. Having said that, it does seem to me to be quite a functional argument and one that doesn’t really speak to the cultural change that is required. Or is that too cynical of me?

What is your body language really saying? (Women in Focus)
Some interesting ideas in here. I am a little guilty of the tilt in photos. I thought it was to create a bit of interest in the lines of the photo, but is that conditioning?!

 

International trade agreements have the potential to help breaking the vicious circle of corruption in economies based on privileged connections rather than fair competition. They increase competition in the removal of tariffs and so diminish the power of rentier companies which influence domestic regulation in their favour. They also contribute to a fairer business environment through their transparency provisions. Trade openness, red tape reduction and fiscal transparency, especially transparency of procurement, play positive roles in widening control of corruption. They can be more easily influenced by external actors than the other important control of corruption factors: judicial independence, freedom of the press or the demand from civil society for good governance. This study ordered by the INTA Committee argues that indirect good governance policies which increase competition and subvert power and economic monopolies or quasi monopolies are far more effective than direct anticorruption policies, which in relying on domestic implementation tend to fall into the vicious circle again. The study presents options characterised as an ‘economist’s approach’ with an apparently more modest but effective good governance package, a ‘lawyer’s’ approach’ with firm anticorruption language but unenforceable provisions even in EU countries (on bribery, for instance), and a ‘holistic’ approach where the EU would coordinate across international trade, promotion of norms and development aid. The three options may be used alternatively, depending on the degree of development and quality of governance of the trading partner. The study was presented at a workshop of the INTA committee on 24 January 2018.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

This blog post was original published as part of the BISA Postgraduate Network blog series. 

 

 

More and more British universities offer modules on the study of the European Union (EU). These allow students to learn how the institutions of the EU function and how its policies are made. The debate on how to best teach European Studies is not new. Academic associations, like BISA, frequently organise events and panels on this topic. With the UK’s decision to leave the EU, however, teaching European studies has become a new challenge at British universities. In large part, this is because of the diverging perceptions of, and growing uncertainty caused by, Brexit. This has triggered a new debate[1] about how best to teach EU studies in light of the changing EU-UK relationship.

During my time at the University of Kent, I have taught the ‘Politics of the European Union’ module. Whilst I have enjoyed my teaching on this module, I have met several challenges. Reflecting on these experiences, this blog entry explores some of the challenges and opportunities I have faced teaching the EU after Brexit.

 

The Challenges of Teaching European/EU Studies during Brexit

Teaching topics of contemporary significance, particularly those as polarising as Brexit, can increase the engagement with the teaching material. At the same time, however, they can also bring about frustration. The negotiations between the UK government and the EU are still ongoing. No final outcome has been agreed. Every day social media and newspapers are overloaded with information on the current state of the Brexit negotiations and their implications. Yet, a lot of this information is blurred and often fails to present the whole picture of the negotiation process

Providing students with the correct information and details in this chaos is much more complicated than with more static topics (IR theory courses come to mind here). Remaining constantly up-to-date also presents another challenge. Students like to stay abreast of the breaking developments, and it is important to come to seminars as prepared as possible. In some instances, new information about the negotiation process was announced after I had finished preparing for my seminars. Thanks to media alerts and online media source, it was possible to also inform students on the most recent developments during class.

To develop their understanding of the EU, my students were tasked to give a 3-minute presentation on an issue they were interested in concerning the EU from a non-British newspaper. In addition to their core readings they were encouraged to follow the media on a weekly basis. I provided a list of newspaper outlets, think tanks and other media sources, and on the Moodle page either the lecturer or I regularly uploaded relevant material on the Brexit negotiations. This allowed the students to get insights from outside the UK, and we hoped to diversify their views on European issues. Students made use of newspapers from the Czech Republic, France and Spain as well as from Australia and the US. In terms of the British media, they followed newspapers ranging from The Daily Mail to The Guardian and The Economist.

What we quickly found, however, is that students often lacked sufficient background information on EU institutions needed to understand what was reported in the media. In order to overcome this issue, we discussed the EU institutions in class and linked them to the media presentations which we had asked the students to prepare. These discussions turned out to be rather opinionated, and not always based on facts and evidence, which has proven to be tricky. What we found is that the use of smaller groups discussions was particularly helpful in encouraging the students to broaden their understanding of the EU, and this later fed into both their debates and presentations.

Discussing the EU and Europe also brings about emotions[2]. The seminar groups were not only a good mix of British, European, and other international students, but were also divided into Leavers and Remainers. Talking about the possible outcomes of Brexit triggered certain emotions in the students, which I – as their seminar leader – had to deal with. While some students were disappointed and frustrated about the negotiation process, others became more and more convinced of the necessity of Brexit. This led to tensions in the classroom. Since everybody has an opinion on the UK’s membership in the EU and on Brexit, teaching the issue as objective as possible posed another challenge which needed to be overcome. We therefore generalised the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership in more abstract terms, and with the help of other European students’ own experience we compared EU membership across several other states. This not only lead to fruitful exchanges and debates, but also helped to illustrate similar perceptions among EU member states

 

 

 

The Opportunities of Teaching European/EU Studies during Brexit

Teaching the EU in the context of Brexit also presents many opportunities. Students seem to be generally interested in the topic, and this was especially the case for British students. This has been demonstrated not only by high seminar attendance, but also by the mid-term and end of term evaluations. Some student comments showed that they particularly enjoyed taking the module thanks to its relevance to their daily lives and the innovative use of newspapers and social media. Regarding the latter, we found that drawing on information from the news and social media helped keep the student’s interest since they increasingly make use of these tools and channels to acquire information and knowledge. Being able to receive input from a variety of sources also diversifies the views and perspectives on the EU.

Throughout the term we had very lively discussions on the functioning of the EU as well as on its various policies. Issues such as the Customs Union and the Single Market, as well as the EU’s external relations, were of high interest among the students. Every student had an opinion of some kind of the EU and on the UK’s position in the negotiation process. This encouraged all the students to participate and conduct extended research to prepare for the seminar sessions. As mentioned above, at times the heated discussions were challenging, yet they were also very stimulating on both sides.

European/EU studies attracts a variety of students from various backgrounds. These students all bring their own understandings, biases of and visions for the European Union. This has allowed for a informative and exciting exchange of ideas between the students. All students were encouraged to share their personal perceptions of the policies as well as workings and developments of the EU. In this context, everyone reflected on their experiences with the EU and shared them with the others. The aim of reflecting here was to critically engage and to build a personal relationship with the EU, and to see how certain events fit into the larger picture of the EU.

Lastly, as someone who has worked within one of the EU institutions and who researches one of the EU’s policy areas, teaching European Studies during the Brexit negotiations also gave me an opportunity to integrate my research and experiences into my teaching. My students valued this and appreciated anecdotes from the so-called ‘EU Bubble’. Combining my research topic and work experience with teaching did not only save time for the preparations, but also added value to the teaching since some students consider working for the EU or a Brussels-based interest group in the future.

 

Conclusion

Overall, the debate on how to teach European Studies in times of the Brexit negotiations has gained increasing importance. Even in light of the letter sent to university Vice Chancellors by MP Chris Heaton-Harris[3] in early October 2017, who demanded information on how Brexit and the EU are taught at British universities, the topic should not quench any lecturer or teaching assistant to take on this endeavour. Instead, the debate on how we perceive and understand the EU, as well as its future relationship with the UK, presents both challenges and opportunities for postgraduates who teach.

 

[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/career-advice-how-teach-brexit (accessed on 12/02/2018)

[2] http://ukandeu.ac.uk/public-emotions-as-an-indicator-of-the-outcomes-of-the-brexit-negotiations/ (accessed on 12/02/2018)

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris (accessed on 12/02/2018)

 

Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters is a PhD Candidate and Teaching Assistant at the University of Kent.

The post Teaching European Studies in Times of Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

One year ago, on 27 March 2017, Labour said it would hold the Tories to their pledge to keep the exact same benefits of the EU Single Market after Brexit. Of course, that can’t happen unless the UK is in the Single Market, accepting its rules including Free Movement of People.

This was my commentary at the time:

In a significant shift in Labour’s position, Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will oppose any Brexit deal that doesn’t offer Britain the exact same benefits as being in the EU Single Market and customs union.

It’s a welcome new stance by Labour, and although a little late (where was Labour’s strong stance in the Brexit Bill debate?) it’s hopefully not too late.

But in the same breath, Sir Keir has said that Free Movement of People “has to go when we exit the EU..” Doesn’t he realise that Free Movement of People is a key benefit of the Single Market and an essential requirement to be in the Single Market?

Labour still seems confused about the EU. By now, Sir Keir should realise that it’s impossible for Britain to enjoy the ‘exact same benefits’ of the EU without being in the EU.

So instead of fudging Brexit, Labour should come clean and say it loud and clear: Britain can only enjoy the same benefits it enjoys now by staying in the EU. Labour should be fighting tooth and nail to #StopBrexit.

Here was my report from 27 March 2017:

→ LABOUR WILL OPPOSE BREXIT UNLESS IT MEETS SIX TESTS

In a significant hardening of Labour’s position, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show yestereday that Labour will oppose any Brexit deal unless it meets ‘six tests.’

In particular, any Brexit deal must offer the “exact same benefits” the UK currently has from the EU Single Market and customs union.

Here’s an extract of Andrew Marr’s interview with Sir Keith in which he announced Labour’s new ‘red lines’ on Brexit:

ANDREW MARR: The real fight starts now, says Jeremy Corbyn, as the Brexit gun is cocked. So exactly what fight? When? Where? And over exactly what? The Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer is here with all the answers I’m sure…

KEIR STARMER: Well, what I’m setting out tomorrow are six tests for the final deal for Brexit. So far all the attention’s been on should the Prime Minister have permission to start negotiations. We’re through that part.

Now what comes into focus is what is the right deal, because this is about our future relationship with the EU. So I’m setting out six tests for the government. We then start a two year process, probably more than a two year process and it’s for the government to negotiate and come back with a deal that’s right for our country.

ANDREW MARR: And luckily and happily for us both I have your six tests here. I won’t go through all of them. You say you want a strong collaborative future relationship with the EU. I would suggest that everybody wants that.

KEIR STARMER: Well you say that but I think some of the pure Brexiteers actually want us to crash out either at the Article 50 stage in two years or before that, so I accept that the majority of people want a collaborative strong relationship but it is important to say that because not everybody’s in that place.

ANDREW MARR: You’ll have seen the word of Michel Barnier and others this week about what might happen if we don’t have a deal. In your view how damaging would it be not to have a deal?

KEIR STARMER: Oh very damaging. Very damaging economically, that’s what the CBI, what the Mayor of London and many others have said in pure economic terms.

But there’s also Britain’s place in Europe and in the world. If we crash out without a deal with no meaningful relationship with our EU partners. Now I accept we won’t be members but we must be partners and this has to be fought for over the next two years.

ANDREW MARR: Okay, let’s come onto the second bit which is slightly crunchier. You say we want the exact benefits, your words, from the single market and the customs union.

Can I put to you that that is just not going to happen. We’re outside both of those things, Michel Barnier and others have made it absolutely plain that we cannot get all the same benefits as if we were inside and therefore that is a hopeless thing to ask for.

KEIR STARMER: Well we’re not inside, I accept that. I do not accept that we can’t have the same benefits.

ANDREW MARR: The exact same benefits?

KEIR STARMER: Now those words, ‘exact same benefits’ are not my words.

ANDREW MARR: They’re in your six list.

KEIR STARMER: They’re in my test but they’re taken from David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

When he was pressed on this in parliament he said that he would deliver a comprehensive free trade agreement and a customs arrangement that delivered the exact same benefits as the single market and the customs union.

So we’re holding him to that test. The government can’t turn round now and say this is unachievable because it was David Davis who the Prime Minister has appointed in the role of the exiting the EU who set that as (his achievement).

ANDREW MARR: Now we come onto the next very interesting bit which is that Mr Barnier, Mr Juncker this week and many others have said that it may be achievable but there is a real price to pay. It’s about £50 billion. Is that a price worth paying so far as the Labour Party is concerned?

KEIR STARMER:Well so far as the money is concerned I wouldn’t get into a debate about the precise figure, but I would say this.

I think it’s very important early on that the principles of liability established, what is the money for, what are the principles that are to be applied to it and then I think the Prime Minister should say loud and clear, we are a country that complies with our international obligations and when a figure is arrived at, that is a figure that the UK as an international country would pay.

ANDREW MARR: You accept that we would have to pay a fairly hefty bill. Let’s not talk about numbers, but a fairly hefty bill in return for getting free access to the single market?

KEIR STARMER: Well as I say there will be principles, there will be a bill and I think we should say loud and clear we’re a country that honours our obligation.

Now how much and over what period is to be negotiated. I am very strongly of the view that there ought to be transitional arrangements from March 2019 until we reach and conclude these strong collaborative relationships that we need. So that could be paid over a longer period if we get the right relationship.

ANDREW MARR: Now among the others on the list – I won’t go through all the tests but you talk about ‘the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities’ which if I may say so is a fairly bland thing to say. Can I ask you to explain to us in a single sentence what Labour’s immigration policy now is.

KEIR STARMER: Well, we are clear that immigration was part of the debate in the referendum and therefore there’s got to be to change to the freedom of movement rules. So that goes.

ANDREW MARR: So freedom of movement goes?

KEIR STARMER: That has to go and when we exit the EU therefore there won’t be that rule.

ANDREW MARR: Your Leader suggests that might not be the case. It might go or it might not, he said.

KEIR STARMER: Well it’s an EU rule. It will have to go and therefore there’s a blank piece of paper and what I’m saying is the test tomorrow –

ANDREW MARR: So he was wrong about that.

KEIR STARMER:- is that we must have managed migration. I think the two most important things are firstly what’s going to work for the economy and then secondly what’s right for our communities.

ANDREW MARR: And do you see EU migration falling dramatically or substantially as a result of us leaving the EU?

KEIR STARMER: I think it might fall but I’ve talked to hundreds of businesses across the UK in the last three or four months. Literally hundreds of businesses. They’re very anxious and very concerned that there should be the right rules in place to enable them to continue with their businesses and I think everybody is in that place.

ANDREW MARR: You rule out freedom of movement staying?

KEIR STARMER: Well freedom of movement is an EU rule and therefore that will go. There will be a blank piece of paper and we then start with the principles that we need to apply to a future looking immigration policy.

ANDREW MARR: See your Leader said, and I quote: ‘We do not rule it out.’

KEIR STARMER:Well I think that was in a sentence where he said ‘I’m not committed to it neither do I rule it out.’ But the reality is –

ANDREW MARR: A slightly confusing sentence.

KEIR STARMER:- this is an EU rule and it will go once we depart. And that actually gives an opportunity in the Labour Party and elsewhere to say what does a principle based immigration policy look like that works for our communities and works for businesses.

ANDREW MARR: Let’s come to the really crunch questions. There are your principles. If you don’t get them what do you do?

KEIR STARMER: Well, I’ll say this first. I hope that the Prime Minister gets the right deal for our country because this is not about party politics, but about the future of our country.

• Full transcript of interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26031702.pdf

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

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

 

The post Tories and Labour promise Brexit cake appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/7cdf2d4e-310d-11e8-805a-bc764e093073_151.68_thumb_169_1522080010_1522080010_129_97shar_c1.jpg

Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, participates in the Tashkent conference on Afghanistan: Peace process, security cooperation and regional connectivity, taking place on 26-27 March 2018, in Tashkent.

Download this video here.

Length of video : 62'
You may manually download this video in WMV (748Mb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 101'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.2Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

I’m enjoying life in Australia and my work at Uniting is really keeping me busy and stretching me. But I know that my visa runs out in 2020 and I really need to start thinking about what comes next. One of the ideas that has been sat on the backburner for a bit is applying for a PhD. I go backwards and forwards on this – my problem is I’ve got too many interests. The current idea is something related to this paper I wrote during my Masters, exploring national v European identity and particularly among European policymakers.

So the next step is to write up some sort of proposal. If you know any good texts on identity, please send them my way. And even better if you know anyone looking for a PhD student to research it!

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/EUTurkey_thumb_169_1522055445_1522055445_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The EU-Turkey leaders meet on 26 March in Varna, Bulgaria, with Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, Prime Minister of Bulgaria, and the President of Turkey. This working dinner is an occasion to assess matters of mutual interest and recent developments in Turkey, including the country’s illegal actions in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea and its involvement in Syria.

Download this video here.

Sixty-one years ago, on 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six European countries to form a remarkable new community.

The European Economic Community – later to be called the European Union – was started in the aftermath of the Second World War with one purpose and one purpose alone: to create lasting peace.

That was the passionate resolve of those who are regarded as the eleven founders of the European Union, including our own war leader, Winston Churchill.

After all, Europe had a long and bloody history of resolving its differences through war, and indeed, the planet’s two world wars originated right here, on our continent.

So, the EU was never just an economic agreement between nations.

It was always also meant to be a social and political union of European nations to enable them to find ways not just to trade together, but to co-exist and co-operate in harmony and peace on many levels as a community of nations.

The goal, in the founding document of the European Union called the Treaty of Rome, was to achieve ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ (which is rather different to ‘ever closer union of nations’.)

Just one year after the Second World War, in 1946, Winston Churchill made his famous speech in Zurich, Switzerland in which he said:

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.”

At the time Churchill did not envisage Britain joining the new Union of Europe, but he was later to change his mind.

The six founding nations of the new European Community were France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.

This was a remarkable achievement, considering that these countries only a few years previously had been fighting in a most terrible war, and four of the founding nations had been viciously subjugated by another of the founders, Germany, during their Nazi regime.

In a speech four months later in July 1957 at Westminster’s Central Hall, Churchill welcomed the formation of the EEC by the six, provided that, “the whole of free Europe will have access”. Churchill added, “we genuinely wish to join..”

But Churchill also warned:

“If, on the other hand, the European trade community were to be permanently restricted to the six nations, the results might be worse than if nothing were done at all – worse for them as well as for us. It would tend not to unite Europe but to divide it – and not only in the economic field.”

Maybe this is the point that many Brexiters simply don’t get.

Here in Britain we don’t seem to understand the founding purpose of the European Union – and on the rest of the continent, they don’t understand why we don’t understand.

The European Union isn’t just about economics and trade, and never was. It’s about peace, and a community of nations of our continent working together for the benefit and protection of its citizens.

We are now rebuffing our allies in Europe, telling them by our actions and words that the precious, remarkable and successful post-war project to find peace and security on our continent isn’t as important to us as it is to them.

Will our friendship and relationship with the rest of our continent ever recover?

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Watch this 4-minute related video:

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

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.12'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

The EU was started for peace

→ Trade was the means, but peace was the goal – Please shareEUROPEAN COMMUNITY STARTED 61 YEARS AGO TODAYSixty-one years ago today, on 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six European countries to form a remarkable new community. The European Economic Community – later to be called the European Union – was started in the aftermath of the Second World War with one purpose and one purpose alone: to create lasting peace.That was the passionate resolve of those who are regarded as the eleven founders of the European Union, including our own war leader, Winston Churchill. After all, Europe had a long and bloody history of resolving its differences through war, and indeed, the planet’s two world wars originated right here, on our continent.So, the EU was never just an economic agreement between nations. It was always also meant to be a social and political union of European nations to enable them to find ways not just to trade together, but to co-exist and co-operate in harmony and peace on many levels as a community of nations. The goal, in the founding document of the European Union called the Treaty of Rome, was to achieve ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ (which is rather different to ‘ever closer union of nations’.)Just one year after the Second World War, in 1946, Winston Churchill made his famous speech in Zurich, Switzerland in which he said:“We must build a kind of United States of Europe. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.”At the time Churchill did not envisage Britain joining the new Union of Europe, but he was later to change his mind. The six founding nations of the new European Community were France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. This was a remarkable achievement, considering that these countries only a few years previously had been fighting in a most terrible war, and four of the founding nations had been viciously subjugated by another of the founders, Germany, during their Nazi regime. In a speech four months later in July 1957 at Westminster’s Central Hall, Churchill welcomed the formation of the EEC by the six, provided that, "the whole of free Europe will have access". Churchill added, "we genuinely wish to join.."But Churchill also warned:“If, on the other hand, the European trade community were to be permanently restricted to the six nations, the results might be worse than if nothing were done at all – worse for them as well as for us. It would tend not to unite Europe but to divide it – and not only in the economic field.” Maybe this is the point that many Brexiters simply don’t get. Here in Britain we don’t seem to understand the founding purpose of the European Union – and on the rest of the continent, they don’t understand why we don’t understand. The European Union isn't just about economics and trade, and never was. It’s about peace, and a community of nations of our continent working together for the benefit and protection of its citizens.We are now rebuffing our allies in Europe, telling them by our actions and words that the precious, remarkable and successful post-war project to find peace and security on our continent isn't as important to us as it is to them. Will our friendship and relationship with the rest of our continent ever recover?• Words and video by Jon Danzig• Please re-Tweet: twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/977836183941238784• This video is now on YouTube. Please share: youtu.be/jts-82rsU7I********************************************► Watch Jon Danzig's video on YouTube: 'Can Britain Stop Brexit?' Go to CanBritainStopBrexit.com► Read Jon Danzig's article: 'Why Brexit is madness' jondanzig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/why-brexit-is-madness.html********************************************• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Instructions to ensure you get notifications of all our stories:1. Click on the ‘Following’ button under the Reasons2Remain banner2. Change the ‘Default’ setting by clicking ‘See first’.********************************************• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/********************************************• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/********************************************• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk********************************************• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help, please send us a private message.********************************************• © Reasons2Remain 2018. All our articles and graphics are the copyright of Reasons2Remain. We only allow sharing using the Facebook share button. Any other use requires our advance permission in writing.#STOPBREXIT #EXITBREXIT

Posted by Reasons2Remain on Sunday, 25 March 2018

The post The EU was started to create peace appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Tag: maintien de paixc`est pas sorcier

Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has fired shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith MP, after he called for a another referendum on the final Brexit deal.

The sacking came after Owen Smith wrote an article for The Guardian, urging his party to seriously consider whether Brexit was the right thing for Britain, and proposing that another vote on the issue was required.

The sacking is causing tensions in the Parliamentary Labour party over Brexit. HuffPost claimed that Labour was now ‘at war’.

Labour former Cabinet minister Lord Hain accused Corbyn of a “terrible Stalinist purge” for sacking Smith.

Ex-Labour Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw added: “Why is Owen SmithMP being sacked for representing views of UKLabour members & voters on Tory #BrexitShambles when John, Emily & Shami publicly contradicted Jeremy on #Salisburyattack & are still in their jobs?”

Labour MP Anna Turley said Smith’s sacking was “disappointing” and he would be a loss to the front bench.

According to polling earlier this year by the Mile End Institute, almost 80% of Labour party members now want a second referendum on the Brexit deal.

Furthermore, the survey revealed that 87% of Labour Party members want the UK to stay in the EU Single Market.

It seems that Owen Smith’s comments today are more in line with Labour’s members, supporters and voters than Jeremy Corbyn.

This is the article that Owen Smith wrote for The Guardian today that resulted in his sacking:
___________________________________________________

THERESA MAY HAS GOT HER TRANSITION AGREEMENT. To get there she has had to surrender on just about every one of the issues she and her ministers once told us were key sticking points.

The UK will be paying billions over to the EU despite having no say in its decisions, free movement will continue, the European court of justice will be able to issue instructions to British courts for at least another decade, the common fisheries policy will still apply to Britain – the list goes on.

The one thing that the transition agreement has come nowhere near resolving is the biggest issue of all: the network of future relationships across these islands.

By keeping the UK in the customs union and single market for another 20 months, the transition agreement puts back the need to answer the big questions about the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, but it does not remove it.

The damage a disorderly and ill-thought-out Brexit could do in Ireland is enormous. We are often told Brexit threatens to “reimpose” a so-called hard border on the island of Ireland, but that understates the problem. Because the economic border that a hard Brexit would impose on Ireland would be the hardest ever.

Not only would Northern Ireland and the Republic have different currencies but different regulatory regimes and customs barriers as well.

But this is Ireland, and while the economy is one thing, the symbolism is another. The openness of the Irish border is a hugely important sign of the continuing successes – despite all the problems – of the peace process cemented into the Good Friday agreement.

More than that, it demonstrates, every day, that different identities, histories and jurisdictions can coexist on the island without threatening each side’s integrity or legitimacy.

Given the immense suffering, in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland and the Republic, during the Troubles, we mess with these symbols at our peril.

The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland says a hard border would put his officers’ lives at risk and it seems like madness that we would even contemplate doing that.

More than that, when the British and Irish governments signed the Good Friday agreement we were entering into a contract with the people of Ireland, north and south. It is disgraceful that we think we can break that without their consent.

If we insist on leaving the EU then there is realistically only one way to honour our obligations under the Good Friday agreement and that is to remain members of both the customs union and the single market.

I’m pleased my party has taken a big step in this direction by backing continued customs union membership, but we need to go further.

Labour needs to do more than just back a soft Brexit or guarantee a soft border in Ireland. Given that it is increasingly obvious that the promises the Brexiters made to the voters – especially, but not only, their pledge of an additional £350m a week for the NHS – are never going to be honoured, we have the right to keep asking if Brexit remains the right choice for the country.

And to ask, too, that the country has a vote on whether to accept the terms, and true costs of that choice, once they are clear. That is how Labour can properly serve our democracy and the interests of our people.
___________________________________________________

In response to the sacking, Owen Smith tweeted:

‘Just been sacked by @jeremycorbyn for my long held views on the damage #Brexit will do to the Good Friday Agreement & the economy of the entire U.K. Those views are shared by Labour members & supporters and I will continue to speak up for them, and in the interest of our country.’

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

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

The post Labour is out of touch with its supporters appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

If the EU referendum had been run with the same rules as Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, the Leave vote would still have won – but Brexit would not now be happening.

That’s because in Scotland’s first referendum on devolution in 1979, our Parliament passed an amendment to the Scotland Act 1978, which set a minimum threshold before such a significant change could take place.

The amendment stipulated that a minimum of 40% of the total electorate in Scotland would need to vote for the country to have its own assembly before it could happen.

As it turned out, 52% of those who voted ticked ‘Yes’ for power to be devolved to Scotland, with 48% ticking ‘No’ – ironically, exactly the same percentages as our UK-wide EU referendum of 2016, which was 52%-48% in favour of Britain leaving the EU.

But here’s the difference.

Since the percentage of those voting ‘Yes’ for devolution was only 33% of registered voters, Scotland on that occasion didn’t get its own assembly, because Parliament had set a threshold of at least 40% of the electorate voting ‘Yes’ before it could happen.

The then Labour government accepted that the Act’s requirements had not been met in the referendum, and that devolution would therefore not be introduced for Scotland.

Setting a minimum threshold for constitutional change is normal practice among democracies across the world that use referendums. For example, a threshold of higher than 50% of the total electorate, or a two-thirds majority of those voting, before a country’s constitution can be changed.

This makes sense, since if the majority of a country’s electorate doesn’t positively agree to change – whether they vote or not – it means that a minority is making the decision without the express wishes of the majority.

Well, that’s precisely what happened in the EU referendum.

Unfortunately, Parliament on that occasion didn’t set a threshold requiring 40% of the total electorate to vote for ‘Leave’ before it could happen.

That’s no doubt because, unlike the Scottish referendum in 1979, the EU referendum of 2016 was advisory only. However, since only a minority of the electorate voted for Leave, it would have been plausible for Parliament to say that an insufficient percentage of voters had voted for Leave.

In the EU referendum, only 37% of the total electorate voted for Leave.

If Parliament had set a minimum threshold of at least 40%, as it did for Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, it would mean that Brexit wouldn’t now be going ahead.

If such a threshold had been in place, it would have avoided the constitutional crisis that has now engulfed the United Kingdom, involving a minority of the electorate permanently changing the country, without the express consent of the majority.

Some readers (Brexiters) may ask what does it matter? The referendum has happened, according to the rules agreed by Parliament, and we can’t turn back the clock.

That, of course, is true.

However, there were so many flaws in the EU referendum that I believe it’s necessary to expose the plebiscite for what it was: a sham involving a democratic deficit on a grand and shocking scale.

If we dismantle the referendum, brick by brick, we can see that the country is being changed without a bona fide mandate to do so.

Consider just some of the key shortfalls and defects in the referendum:

• It’s just been announced that Cambridge Analytica, the company at the heart of the Facebook scandal, boasted of having “vast amounts of data” that could sway the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union. A 10-page document written by Cambridge Analytica, headed “Big Data Solutions for the EU Referendum”, claimed it could single out Brexiters among voters, donors, politicians and even journalists.

MPs have called for a wider investigation into the firm, which has been accused of obtaining 50 million people’s private details harvested from Facebook, amid questions over the role it may have played in the referendum.

• During the referendum campaign, the country was lied to by the Leave campaign on a scale never seen before in a modern UK poll. Millions of voters opted for Leave on the basis of promises about Brexit that can never be fulfilled, and misleading information about the EU that was demonstrably wrong. Without such dishonesty, it’s almost certain that Leave could not have won.

• Nobody during the referendum campaign knew what the Leave vote meant. We knew what Remain meant, as we’d had it for over 40 years. But there was no clear vision or manifesto or plan for leaving the EU that the voters could consider, let alone understand. We still don’t know what Leave means.

• In 2015 the Conservatives made a manifesto pledge to scrap the rule preventing Britons from voting who had lived abroad for more than 15 years. However, the Conservative government stated that it could not implement this promise in time for the referendum.

In addition, many British voters abroad who were eligible to vote, complained that they had not received their postal ballots in time to cast their votes. Without this debacle, it’s quite likely that Leave would not have won the referendum.

• Citizens from over 70 countries (mostly Britain’s former colonies) with ‘leave to remain’ in the UK were allowed to vote in the EU referendum, but most citizens from the rest of the EU living and working in the UK were denied a vote, even though the referendum result directly affected them.

This represented a serious democratic deficit. (After all, citizens from the EU living in Scotland were allowed to vote in Scotland’s referendum on independence).

• The House of Lords put forward an amendment that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote in the EU referendum, in the same way that they were allowed to vote in Scotland’s referendum on independence.

But the Commons rejected this amendment, “Because it would involve a charge on public funds”. So younger people, who will have to live with the referendum decision for the longest, were denied a vote simply on the grounds of cost. (The cost of Brexit will be much higher).

• As previously discussed, only 37% of the total electorate voted for Leave, meaning that a minority of registered voters are to permanently change the country’s direction, without the express consent of the majority.

• Older voters are responsible for Leave winning, in particular the over 70s, who swung the vote for Brexit with their 1.28 million Leave votes. In contrast, younger people voted predominantly for Remain, by 75% to 25%.

As older Leave voters die, and younger Remain supporting youngsters come of age, it means that if the Referendum had been held just a bit later, Remain would have won.

(This simply shows how tenuous was the Leave vote – it wasn’t a landslide, in just very slightly different circumstances, Brexit would not now be happening.)

• The referendum, by act of Parliament, was not legally binding, but simply an advisory exercise. The Supreme Court ruled that only an act of Parliament could result in Britain leaving the EU. But no such act has been passed by Parliament.

The government wrongly advised Parliament that the decision to leave the EU had been made in the referendum, and that Parliament only needed to vote to give the Prime Minister permission to give notice to the EU that the UK was leaving.

However, many leading lawyers are now saying this was incorrect. The referendum, being advisory, could not give an instruction on leaving the EU. Consequently, it’s claimed that Theresa May’s letter to the EU under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was invalid. This is currently the subject of a legal challenge.

These are just some of the key reasons why the EU referendum was flawed, leading to the biggest constitutional crisis for Britain in modern times.

The EU referendum, like all referendums, was nothing more than a lottery. And unfortunately, this time, we are all the losers.

________________________________________________________

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook

The post Why the EU referendum was flawed appeared first on Ideas on Europe.