European Union

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.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/2311cc80-e0e1-11e7-ad7a-bc764e092fac_389.85_thumb_169_1518715247_1518715247_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU heads of state or government meet on 23 March 2018 in Brussels, firstly in an EU28 format, and then in an EU27 format, to adopt guidelines on the framework for the future relationship with the UK after Brexit. Afterwards, for the Euro Summit, the 19 euro area members discuss the long-term development of the economic and monetary union, including more ambitious proposals in the fiscal and economic dimension.

Download this video here.

Judicial statistics 2017: the number of cases brought has once again exceeded 1 600

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 47'
You may manually download this video in WMV (438Mb) 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 : 149'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) 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 : 149'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.7Gb) 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

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/2311cc80-e0e1-11e7-ad7a-bc764e092fac_385.72_thumb_169_1518715017_1518715017_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU heads of state or government meet on 22 March 2018 in Brussels to focus on economic issues. Leaders are addressing the single market, the European Semester, social issues and trade. They are also discussing recent developments in relations with Turkey and preparing for the upcoming EU- Western Balkans summit on 17 May. Under the Leaders' Agenda they are discussing taxation.

Download this video here.

So, for all the worrying, it looks like tomorrow’s Art.50 European Council will be a procession. The draft Withdrawal Agreement is 75% green, transition agreements are all in place and the events in Salisbury have reminded everyone that there are good external reasons to get on with each other.

Of course, it’s not nearly that simple.

The Irish dimension remains no nearer to securing a non-Option C outcome and there are important gaps on dispute resolution. But for boosters, there’s a lot to be happy about.

And one marker of that, and of the more general buy-in to the agreement, is the proliferation of fig-leaves.

By that I mean symbolic elements that do not challenge the basic outlines of the deal, but suggest steely resolve and not letting ‘them’ get the better of ‘us’.

To be clear, these are not un-important elements, especially for those directly involved, but in the wider scheme of things they are largely marginal.

I’ll hesitate to call the ‘new passports to be made in the Netherlands‘ story such a fig-leaf, although it is a classic bit of misdirection (and an education on what free trade actually involves).

However, the furore over fishing in the UK is a fig-leaf: with several MPs threatening to vote down the Article 50 deal if the Common Fisheries Policy continues through to the end of transition, and more stunts on the Thames yesterday, it is clear there is much heat around this issue.

However, heat is not light, and it not clear that those MPs can secure Labour support, especially when the government has said that rejecting the deal means leaving without one at all: the former get to stand up for their constituents, while the government gets to keep its deal with the EU27.

Even if there were to be a concession on CFP, it would be a very small economic effect and one likely to flounder (sorry) on the lack of alternative fisheries management arrangements that could come into effect in March 2019.

It is tempting to see the Gibraltar issue in a similar light on the EU’s side. Spain has been reported to be blocking agreement tomorrow until the status of the territory is addressed. However, the mood in Brussels seems to be that this can be pushed into bilateral discussions between London and Madrid and needn’t jeopardise the rest of the progress.

Important as Gibraltar is as a symbol of Spanish politics – especially in a period of territorial uncertainty – it is also an important part of the southern Spanish regional economy, so the extent to which the country will want to endanger that – and be seen as responsible for the compromising of relations with the UK – must be under question.

In sum, the momentum that has built up in Article 50 is now quite considerable and is making it harder for any one to step away from it all. While the calls heard this week for a final text by June look hubristic, it is evident that much ground has been covered and that people will be working hard to cover the rest.

Which brings once again to the elephant in the room.

The Irish dimension is now approaching a difficult phase. Option C is drawn up and agreed in principle as a backstop, but the UK has said it really doesn’t want it. The question now is whether Options A or B can also be developed enough to replace C. Certainly that’s part of the logic in pushing the framework for the future relationship as far and as fast as possible and for the efforts being made to develop technological solutions for specific border issues.

But time is running low and the game of chicken hasn’t got much road left. The talk that the UK might be given only until June to work out alternatives before Option C gets locked in is not definitive, but if the European Council does approve that, then more difficulties will ensue.

A possible option is agreeing that work will continue through past March 2019 and into transition, as part of the future relationship talks: things would be fine in the interim, as transition extends everything, and it would mean more time to ‘do it right’. The fear – especially in Dublin – is that such kicking into the long grass might mean a loss of concentrated minds and support for following through.

If Ireland is never going to become a fig-leaf, because of its scale and its knock-on effects, then we should also keep in mind that Article 50 is – more generally speaking – still not a done deal.

Fig-leaves there may be, but recent history tells us to be cautious about making assumptions: political calculations can change and individuals can have very different perceptions of costs and benefits to the rest of us.

A final salutary thought then: when Article 50 has previously made progress, that has been followed by new impasses. Don’t be surprised to see the same once again.

The post Spring: the season of fig-leaves appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

De Capitani v Parliament
Law governing the institutions
The European Parliament must in principle grant access, on specific request, to documents relating to ongoing trilogues

Length of video : 227'
You may manually download this video in WMV (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

DRAFT REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Eugen Freund

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP