Feed aggregator

Er bleibt in der Downing Street Nummer 10 - die britische Parlamentswahl war für ihn ein Triumphzug: David Cameron holte die absolute Mehrheit und…

« C’est un paradoxe : le Royaume-Uni se méfie de plus en plus d’une Union européenne qui n’a jamais été aussi en ligne avec ses idées », s’exclame un haut fonctionnaire de la Commission de nationalité britannique. Du libre-échange à l’anglais, devenu langue quasiment unique des institutions communautaires, en passant par l’élargissement, le marché unique, le moins légiférer, la baisse du budget communautaire, l’Europe à géométrie variable, bref tout ce dont rêvait depuis toujours Albion. « Aujourd’hui, c’est la France qui souffre: l’Europe puissance, la défense européenne ou encore la politique industrielle, autant de choses qui effrayaient la Grande-Bretagne et qui ne sont plus d’actualité », s’amuse ce haut fonctionnaire. Or, plus l’Europe devient britannique, plus Londres s’y sent mal à l’aise au point de vouloir la quitter.

Le Royaume-Uni a su parfaitement manœuvrer pour imposer ses idées au fil des ans. Tout commence avec Margareth Thatcher, la dame de fer, qui comprend rapidement que le Grand Marché lancé par Jacques Delors en 1985 n’est pas seulement un projet fédéral, mais va lui permettre de faire sauter les barrières intérieures aux échanges et ainsi de réaliser une zone de libre échange européenne. Même si elle était plus organisée qu’elle ne l’aurait souhaité, c’est bien ce qui s’est passé, Londres ayant toujours bloqué toute harmonisation fiscale et sociale qui aurait dû en être la contrepartie. Ses successeurs, John Major et Tony Blair, ont, eux, réussi à créer une Europe à géométrie variable en obtenant des « opt out » dans plusieurs domaines : la monnaie, bien sûr, l’immigration et l’asile, la justice et la police, Schengen ou encore la défense. Londres a aussi milité activement pour un élargissement rapide, en s’alliant pour le coup avec l’Allemagne, meilleur moyen de tuer l’idée même d’Europe puissance, un concept qui la hérisse.

La Grande-Bretagne a aussi su renforcer sa présence à Bruxelles. Même si les Britanniques ont toujours été inférieurs en nombre (4,3 % parmi les fonctionnaires de la Commission, par exemple, contre 9,8 % de Français, 10,5 % d’Italiens ou 8,3 % d’Allemands), leur qualité a plus que compensé ce handicap. Ainsi, dans l’exécutif présidé par Jean-Claude Juncker, on compte six chefs de cabinets (et adjoints) britanniques contre trois Français. Parmi les directeurs généraux (chef d’administration centrale), il n’y a certes que cinq Britanniques (sur 68 postes), contre six Français et dix Allemands, mais là aussi à des postes importants. Il faut rajouter la toute puissante secrétaire générale de la Commission, Catherine Day, certes irlandaise, mais très proche des Britanniques. « Il ne s’agit de placer des gens qui prennent leurs ordres de Londres », précise un haut-fonctionnaire britannique, « mais d’avoir des gens qui ont une culture anglo-saxonne et qui influent donc directement sur la législation européenne ». La Représentation permanente (RP, ambassade) britannique auprès de l’UE sait entretenir des relations régulières avec ses fonctionnaires, à la différence de son homologue française qui ne s’intéresse pas aux petits grades. « Même les stagiaires sont reçus par la RP britannique, alors que les Français ignorent qu’on existe », témoigne un Français.

Mais le vent a tourné : depuis 2010, le nombre de candidats britanniques aux concours européens est en chute libre. « Les jeunes ne parlent plus autre chose que l’anglais, ce qui leur barre la route de la fonction publique européenne, l’Europe ne les fait plus rêver et les diplômés sont bien mieux payés dans le privé », analyse un responsable européen. Un phénomène que l’on retrouve dans l’ensemble des pays du nord de l’Europe.

L’explication de cet éloignement de l’Europe tient à la crise financière, qui a porté un coup fatal au laisser-faire économique, et surtout à la crise de la zone euro. Avec l’approfondissement de la zone euro qui a suivi la crise des dettes publiques de 2010-2012 (Mécanisme européen de stabilité, gouvernance économique et budgétaire, union budgétaire, Union bancaire, etc.), la Grande-Bretagne a vu se réaliser son pire cauchemar : une fédéralisation de l’Europe dont elle ne peut ralentir la marche puisqu’elle s’est auto-exclu de la monnaie unique. Désormais, le lieu du pouvoir dans l’Union, c’est la zone euro, une évolution qui n’a échappé à personne, tous les pays européens voulant désormais la rejoindre. Sauf la Grande-Bretagne et la Suède (le Danemark, qui vient de rejoindre l’Union bancaire, est de facto dans la zone euro, la couronne danoise étant liée à la monnaie unique). Au conseil des ministres (l’instance législative qui représente les États), « c’est l’Eurogroupe qui dicte la marche sur des dossiers comme la fiscalité, la réglementation bancaire, les questions budgétaires, etc. », souligne un eurocrate. Désormais, Londres vit dans la hantise que les Etats de la zone euro se mettent d’abord d’accord entre eux afin d’ensuite lui imposer leur volonté…

De même, la crise en Ukraine a redonné du lustre aux partisans d’une Europe puissance, d’une Europe de la défense : « la Grande-Bretagne est dans une position bizarre entre les États-Unis qui se retirent des affaires du monde et l’Union qui s’affirme de plus en plus sur la scène internationale », regrette un haut fonctionnaire britannique.

Cette évolution institutionnelle du cœur de l’Europe s’est accompagné d’une auto-marginalisation politique des conservateurs britanniques qui, en juin 2009, ont quitté le PPE (parti populaire européen, conservateurs) pour créer un groupe sans influence au Parlement européen. Autrement dit, les Tories ont décidé de ne plus rien peser au moment où cette Assemblée a vu ses pouvoirs s’accroitre considérablement avec l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne fin 2009. Un exemple ? Les Britanniques n’ont pas pu participer à la désignation du candidat du PPE à la présidence de la Commission, en l’occurrence Jean-Claude Juncker qui leur fait horreur. Et, en dépit du vote négatif de David Cameron, celui-ci a été confirmé par le Conseil européen des chefs d’État et de gouvernement en juin 2014, ce qui n’était jamais arrivé jusque-là. Autre faute diplomatique : la campagne contre la libre circulation des travailleurs d’Europe de l’Est qui lui a fait perdre ses soutiens traditionnels.

À la différence d’un Tony Blair, qui voulait placer son pays « au cœur de l’Europe » afin de contrôler au plus près son développement, David Cameron a fait un choix inverse qui se paye comptant. « L’image de la Grande-Bretagne est en plein déclin à Bruxelles. Surtout, elle n’est plus à l’initiative, elle est en blocage, ce qui l’empêche de peser sur les textes en discussion en participant à un compromis », analyse un diplomate français. Pour autant, nul ne se résout, à Bruxelles, au départ de la Grande-Bretagne, car cela ouvrirait une nouvelle ère, celle de la déconstruction communautaire. Si l’Union est prête à faire des efforts en légiférant moins, , elle n’ira pas beaucoup plus loin, notamment parce que personne ne veut s’amuser à négocier un nouveau traité. « D’autant qu’en réalité, David Cameron veut participer aux institutions communautaires, mais pas aux politiques européennes. Et, ça c’est inacceptable même pour les plus anglophiles des Européens ».

N.B.: version longue de mon article paru le 7 mai

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_c96321.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/15126_169_full_129_97shar_c1.jpg

On 14 November 2005, the Council established an EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) under the European Security and Defence Policy. The operational phase began on 1 January 2006 with an initial duration of 3 years.

Download this video here.

VIENNA, 7 May 2015 – From 11 to 12 May, officials and key stakeholders from 57 OSCE participating States will meet in Belgrade, Serbia, to discuss water governance in the OSCE area from the security perspective, followed by a field visit on 13 May to the areas affected by the 2014 flood in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

The meeting, hosted by Serbia’s Chairmanship, will be opened by the Serbian State Secretary of Interior Ministry, Aleksandar Nikolić and the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities, Dr. Halil Yurdakul Yigitgüden, followed by keynote speeches of the President of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River Basin, Dražen Kurečić, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Environment Division Director, Marco Keiner.

The meeting will focus on water governance in the context of disaster risk reduction and on raising awareness of the importance of water governance. One year after the unprecedented flooding disaster in South Eastern Europe, participants will share experiences of transboundary co-operation in flood response in the region and beyond.  Water governance in the context of foreign and security policies, investments and development assistance and the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals, along with public participation and awareness-raising in water governance are among the issues that will be addressed in this meeting.

On 13 May, the participants will visit Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sremsko-Macvanski district in Serbia, one of the most affected regions during the May 2014 floods.

The Second Preparatory Meeting will be followed by the Concluding Meeting of the 23rd Economic and Environmental Forum on 14-16 September 2015 in Prague.

Journalists are invited to the opening session of the meeting on 11 May, Monday, from 09:00 to 10:30, at the Palace of Serbia, in Belgrade.

Media interested in attending the opening session should register by sending an e-mail to dinfmsp@gmail.com, by Sunday, 20:00, 10 May 2015.

Press opportunity in Bosnia and Herzegovina will take place on 13 May at 10:30 in village Raca, (next to old mill), Bijeljina municipality. Please register via Zeljka.Sulc@osce.org

Related Stories

• OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Dačić completes two-day visit to OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, supports the country’s commitments to positive reform-oriented agenda
• Chairperson Dačić welcomes inauguration of working groups under Trilateral Contact Group auspices
• Joint press statement of Trilateral Contact Group: Trilateral Contact Group launches activities of working groups advancing implementation of Minsk arrangements

50 Jahre diplomatische Beziehungen sind ein Erfolg, aber auch Anlass zur Korrektur

Jean Cavaillès (1903-1944) était professeur de philosophie des sciences, et grand logicien. C'est précisément en tant que philosophe et logicien qu'il s'engagea dans la Résistance. / France, Culture, Idées, Intellectuels, Personnalités, Politique, Science, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945 - (...) / France, Culture, Idées, Intellectuels, Personnalités, Politique, Science, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945 - 2014/05

C'est devenu une évidence : le fossé se creuse entre les citoyens et leurs représentants. Adopté en violation de la volonté exprimée par les électeurs le 29 mai 2005, le traité de Lisbonne a signalé la tentation autoritaire d'une partie des élites. L'élection d'une Assemblée constituante en France (...) / Europe, France, Démocratie, Droit, Élections, Histoire, Idées, Parti politique, Politique - 2014/04

Research Fellow of  ELIAMEP Dr Filippa Chatzistavrou  analysed the result of the British election by giving an interview to Athina 9.84 radio station.

VIENNA, 8 May 2015 –Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs José Manuel GarcÍa-Margallo will address a Special session of the OSCE Permanent Council, on 11 May 2015, at the Hofburg, Vienna.

The address to the Permanent Council by Minister GarcÍa-Margallo will be open to media. Journalists are invited to the Neuer Saal of the Hofburg Congress Centre at 10:00 am.

Journalists wishing to attend the PC address and/or press briefing are invited to register by sending an e-mail to press@osce.org by Sunday, 10 May at 21:00.

For admittance to the Hofburg Congress Centre, please bring a valid press card and a document with a photo to the security desk (main entrance from the Heldenplatz). 
 

Related Stories

• Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Didier Reynders to address OSCE Permanent Council on Thursday
• Conference on enhancing efforts to prevent and combat intolerance and discrimination against Christians, focusing on hate crimes, exclusion, marginalisation and denial of rights
• OSCE and Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM) share common interests, Secretary General Chechelashvili tells OSCE Permanent Council

La décision du sénat américain concernant la réhabilitation de Mihailović (1989)

/ Bosnie-Herzégovine, Serbie, Draza, Défense, police et justice, Histoire

A Tory government, sceptic on the EU, with a small majority sounds familiar – think of the Major government in the 1990s (though with a majority then of 21 well ahead of Cameron’s slender advantage). But little else looked the same as politicians, pundits and the public alike surveyed the new British political scene on Friday morning.

Within minutes of the UK’s polls closing on Thursday evening, an election outcome no one had predicted was harshly outlined by the exit polls: a Tory majority government, a complete wipe-out for the Lib-Dems nationwide, and a dreadful and hugely disappointing overall result for Labour, with their wipe-out in Scotland by the Scottish Nationalist Party every bit as bad as Labour’s worst scenarios.

Big names fell throughout the night – Labour’s Douglas Alexander went early on, later shadow Chancellor Ed Balls after a recount in the grey light of the next morning. Vince Cable, Simon Hughes, Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander and many other Lib-Dems saw their parliamentary careers ended, while Nick Clegg kept his seat only to gaze out over a rump Lib-Dem contingent of 8 MPs down from 57. The Lib-Dem share of the UK-wide vote was under 8%, a debacle from which there may be no return. By early breakfast time, pundits were wondering if it would be Clegg or Miliband to step down first; in the event, UKIP’s Nigel Farage beat them to it, resigning first, then Clegg shortly before midday and Miliband less than 30 minutes later. The face of British politics changed in one short hour.

The two big victors of the night were David Cameron and Nicola Sturgeon. Cameron is back in Downing Street with a majority no poll had predicted before election day and that the Tories hadn’t dared to dream of. And Nicola Sturgeon led the SNP to victory in 56 out of Scotland’s 59 MPs – up 50 MPs from 2010. As one Scottish journalist put it ironically on Twitter, there were even so more Unionist MPs in Scotland than pandas (three MPs – one each of Labour, LibDem and Tory, with just two pandas on loan from China in Edinburgh zoo).

The UK’s first-past-the post system delivered the Tories their small but so unexpected majority with about 37% of the vote, while the landslide in Scotland reflected the SNP getting over 50% of Scotland’s votes. Labour was  wiped out in its historic heartland of Scotland, despite – or indeed very much linked to – the ‘no’ vote in the independence referendum. The UK Independence Party with its anti-EU, anti-migration, Little Englander stance came out of the night as the UK’s third biggest party in percentage terms – around 12% – but only one MP. Leader Nigel Farage failed to win his target seat and promised (before his resignation) to fight for proportional representation, something that David Cameron is not likely to be spending time on in the next five years.

EU Referendum, potential Brexit on Cards

David Cameron has said very clearly that he would not govern again without holding an EU referendum, so that prospect will now move centre stage. He has also said it would be by 2017, yet it is very unclear how any treaty change could be agreed and ratified by the EU’s 28 member states in such a short time scale, but that will be his aim.

Cameron’s likely demands for EU reform are fuzzy and have changed often in the last couple of years. Migration, despite its prominence in the British political debate in the last few years, did not figure centrally in the election campaign, but issues of controlling and restricting other EU citizens from UK benefits is likely to figure strongly in Cameron’s demand for EU reforms, but what sort of changes other member states will support is less than clear.

Still, with a possible ‘Brexit’ now on the cards, other EU leaders, however reluctant given the ‘awkward squad’ approach of the UK to EU affairs, will mostly do what they can  to keep the UK in while protecting their own interests. The most recent polls put the ‘yes’ vote for staying in ahead, but much can change in a country with a Tory government with a small majority and a strong right-wing agenda, a large eurosceptic UKIP contingent, a wiped-out Lib-Dem party, and a Union with Scotland fraying rapidly.

While the main focus in EU politics for the Cameron-led government will be the referendum, the loss of British influence in the EU over the last five years – from a low profile on Ukraine and Turkey, to no influence over budgetary policies – is likely to continue along with the UK’s wider lessening of global foreign policy influence.

Future cuts in public expenditure are likely to lead to a harsher atmosphere, with unpredictable impacts on opinion on the EU. The Tories’ promised cuts are likely to leave the British state a much smaller share of national income than, in some predictions, since the 1930s. The Tories promised £12 billion in cuts from the welfare budget heralds some drastic attacks on poorer people’s benefits, from young people to the disabled and sick.

Independence for Scotland on the cards again

The bonds linking the four countries of the United Kingdom are now visibly strained to a new level with Scotland and England heading in such different directions politically. The vote in Scotland was in many ways positive, representing a new, positive engagement with politics across the country, including a more positive outlook on the EU, on migration, as well as a strong anti-austerity position. But the SNP will have little influence over Cameron’s majority government (though in his first statement on the steps of no 10, Cameron promised more devolution soon), and the chance of a majority at Westminster with Labour disappeared in the earlier hours of Thursday night.

In the middle of election night, Nicola Sturgeon insisted that this vote was not one about independence, but held out the possibility that elections to the Scottish Parliament due next year would indeed potentially bring the issue up all over again. Any ‘no’ in the now definite EU referendum would also clearly propel the more pro-EU Scots towards an independence ‘yes’. The UK’s historic 300-year existence is now under question like never before.

Where next for the UK?

Cameron has said he would not serve a third term as Prime Minister, so his fellow cabinet ministers will  surely be setting out their stalls very soon to succeed him as leader, and contenders will doubtless be pushing for a leadership election in two years’ time rather than the three or four that Cameron might prefer.

The UK has a clearer government now than many had expected, but the future of the UK, as a country and in the EU, is anything but clear.

 

 

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / FLICKR – UK Parliament

The post The UK’s election upset: Political mould is broken across the country appeared first on Europe’s World.

So it would appear that we will have a Conservative Government with a small majority in the House of Commons. A single party governing over a divided country means the first priority will be dealing with divisions within the United Kingdom – most notably the ‘Scottish question’. Yet of equal importance for this government will be the question of Europe.

David Cameron promised to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU before the end of 2017 if re-elected to Downing Street. Such is the desire to see this amongst his back benchers that Europe might be the issue that maintains discipline among them for other government business – at least until a referendum campaign begins.

Ironically, it may be that the result is the best that those concerned with seeing Britain continue as a member of the EU over the medium term could have hoped for. The UK is now certain to hold a referendum which it would not have had if Ed Miliband had triumphed. Yet, and perhaps more significantly, Cameron’s victory means that the conditions under which this referendum will be held will be more favourable than virtually any conceivable alternative.

For one thing, the ability of the Tory right to talk of a UKIP threat may now be limited; UKIP won only a single seat, which was not claimed by party leader Nigel Farage. More importantly, support for UKIP seems to have affected Labour as much as the Conservatives, notably the defeat inflicted on Ed Balls by the Conservatives, where UKIP polled around 7,000. One potential implication of this is that these backbenchers will find it much harder to bully the Prime Minister when he comes to drawing up the wishlist for his much-vaunted ‘re-negotiation’ of the terms of EU membership.

This in turn increases the likelihood that David Cameron will campaign in favour of continued membership following a re-negotiation that is more likely to succeed. Thus, both major national parties alongside, presumably, the SNP, will come out against ‘Brexit’.

Given this, and despite the suspicion with which the British press – particularly the tabloids – is viewed by Europhiles, it seems likely that only the Daily Express will openly campaign for ‘Brexit’. It will be interesting to see how the Murdoch press approaches the referendum campaign, but my bet would be that metaphors about ‘holding ones nose and voting to stay in’ will be thick on the ground.

Finally – and this would have been the case whatever government had been elected – the business community will come out overwhelmingly in favour of continued membership. However unpopular some in business – notably the banks – may be, their capacity to induce fear was on open display at the time of the Scottish independence referendum and will doubtless be at the fore again in a referendum on EU membership.

Support for British membership has been rising steadily over the last year or so, and this combination of political and broader contextual factors points to a victory for the anti-Brexit camp. For all the uncertainty the prospect of a referendum might seem to bring, there is room for some optimism for those keen to see the UK continue as an EU member.

Of course there are caveats. Perhaps the overwhelming lesson of last night for all those – particularly academics – interested in politics is that polls must be taken with a pinch of salt. And referenda are, of course, particularly unpredictable.

Events in Scotland point to the fact that one referendum may not be enough. For all the rhetoric of some Europhiles that a popular vote on EU membership might ‘lance the boil’ or ‘empty the poison from’ UK-EU relations, it is conceivable that one referendum will lead to calls for a second.

All this being said, it seems that we are finally at a point where the British can have a genuine debate on EU membership. The election campaign warns us that this campaign might not be an exercise in soaring rhetoric and clarity of vision, but that chance for a proper debate is welcome. Were I a betting man – which, after last night, I no longer am – I would place my stake on the public voting to remain in the club.

 

 

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / FLICKR – Council of the European Union

The post Why I would bet on the UK staying in Europe appeared first on Europe’s World.