European Union

On Monday (24 August), the Belarusian defence ministry claimed it used Mi-24 military helicopters to stop eight air balloons “with anti-state slogans” from crossing the border during the Freedom Way demonstration in Lithuania. On Sunday, thousands of people in Lithuania...

Spanish health authorities confirmed that some 37,064 new COVID-19 cases had been recorded in the last week, a figure that has prompted hotspot regions to enforce new restrictions just two weeks before schools are scheduled to reopen, EURACTIV’s partner EFE reports.

The EU's anti-piracy military mission in the Indian Ocean, Atalanta, has exonerated Somalia's police force after reports police had hijacked a Panama-flagged cargo ship last Thursday. "There had been certain incidents on board the vessel" but these "cannot be classified as a maritime security incident," Atalanta said. Somali police boarded the ship because it was adrift due to hull-damage and a Spanish warship was monitoring the situation, the EU said.

German scientists held three music concerts in the city of Leipzig on Sunday to study how mass gatherings affect coronavirus infection, with each event using different rules on hygiene and social distancing. "We have good quality data," Halle University's lead researcher, Stefan Moritz, said, with results due in autumn. Infection rates were climbing in Germany in recent weeks, but the country still had one of the lowest figures in Europe.

The director-general of Belgium's federal police, André Desenfants, told a press conference he was temporarily stepping aside from his role after the emergence of a video showing a Slovak man being pinned down in a custody cell hours before his death and an officer apparently making a Hitler salute, the BBC reported. The Slovak man, Jozef Chovanec, was arrested at Charleroi airport in 2018.

Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko, wearing body armour and holding a rifle as he landed at his residence amid ongoing protests, accused Nato of trying to interfere in Belarus, a claim the military alliance rejected.

"The EU warmly welcomes the announcements issued on 21 August 2020 by the president of the presidency council Fayez Al-Serraj and speaker of the house of representatives Aguila Saleh", EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said in a statement Saturday. However, on Sunday, general Khalifa Haftar, leader of the Libyan National Army rejected the ceasefire, calling it a "marketing stunt" and saying Sarraj was building up forces near Sirte instead.

French president Emmanuel Macron vowed Saturday that he would do everything to find out those who defaced the memorial to a Nazi massacre in Oradour-sur-Glane, France, The Guardian writes. Macron condemned the graffiti in which the word mémoire (memorial) was crossed out and replaced by menteur (liar) as an "unspeakable act". Oradour became the scene of a Nazi brutality in 1994 when 642 people were slaughtered by a German division.

The EU and the US on Friday announced a mini-deal that would eliminate EU tariffs on American lobster after years of trade tensions, Reuters reported. "We intend for this package of tariff reductions to mark just the beginning of a process that will lead to additional agreements that create more free, fair, and reciprocal transatlantic trade," said US trade representative Robert Lighthizer and EU trade commissioner Phil Hogan.

Statement by David McAllister (EPP, DE), Chair of the Parliament's EU-UK Coordination Group, after the latest round of talks on the future relationship between the UK and the EU:

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Statement by David McAllister (EPP, DE), Chair of the Parliament's EU-UK Coordination Group, after the latest round of talks on the future relationship between the UK and the EU:

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The European Parliament is in recess from 27 July to 23 August 2020.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

All that summer rest finally gave me the impetus to put together this little chart the other day. It’s a simple breakdown of the time allocated to the 11 headings of the Future Relationship negotiating rounds, including this week’s 7th. Weightings are based on a negotiating block (usually a half-day), with some joint sessions (e.g. governance and aviation) being split evenly between the two original headings. All the data is based on the published agendas. When I posted on Twitter, I focused mainly on the stability of the time allocations, reflecting the non-agreement on any one chapter: the entire agenda is still in a state of nascent points of common ground, but awaiting now the political level to push into any horse-trading that might occur. Without that push, we’re not going to see things change, or indeed resolve into agreement, regardless of what rational cost-benefit analysis might tell us should happen. Others have written on the politics of the calculations involved, so I’m not going to add further to that pile, but instead I’ll pick up on the comments I got about the time devoted to fisheries. People rightly pointed out that fisheries contributes a trivial amount to economic activity, certainly compared to services, and yet it gets just as much time (only the Level Playing Field gets more). A quick glance at that overall distribution of time will show that economic value is not the driver here. Instead, it’s about the production of legal text to meet the needs of the parties involved, as well as the degree of disagreement between them. Time in negotiations is shaped much more by the logic of the agreement than by objective external benchmarks: the process of negotiation itself becomes part of what is discussed. In some cases, the parties might have minimal disagreement, so it’s relatively quick and simple to close the gap. In others, there might be big differences, but the nature of the field might only allow for one position or the other, so the only discussion is about whether either side concedes the point, or rather that it falls. The difficult and time-consuming cases come when there are multiple options available – including novel ones – or where there are additional legal obligations to be factored in. Fisheries is a good example of such a situation, given assorted bits of international public law, fishing conventions, environmental protection obligations and more ways of managing things than you’d think would exist. Services, by contrast, remains an underdeveloped area of international cooperation, so a lot of what’s going on is about degrees of alignment to EU rules, including on financial equivalence. In addition, the UK isn’t asking for nearly so much on this front, as compared to fisheries. In both cases, the time taken to produce legal texts for inclusion in a new treaty takes time (and you can read the Withdrawal Agreement‘s many annexes for a relevant illustration of how politically not-so-important points can take up a lot of legal space), but it’s not as simple as saying that works on the same basis as the politics of the situation.

The post What do we talk about when we talk about Brexit? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

I am writing this piece in response to the Hungarian opposition political parties’ agreement to create a joint programme for government and stand single candidates against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Hungarian Civic Alliance party (Fidess) in all 106 electoral districts.

The Hungarian opposition’s pledge to unite and form an anti-Orban block for the next General elections seen as a positive move by some quarters, who want Orban gone for good. However, when I look at a similar case study country like Turkey, where alliances between the opposition political parties were formed to either to stand against Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan in the Presidential elections in 2018 or Istanbul Mayoral elections against Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party in 2019, I can say that they do not always produce the desired outcome.

Political parties exist not only to promote the values they are formed on but also to stand in the elections to win a majority to implement their political agenda, which is usually put together before the elections, at least in democracies. While both the Freedom House and V-Dem no longer regard Turkey and Hungary as democracies, I could, to a certain extent, understand the functions of political parties may have changed in Hungary and Turkey.

The evidence suggests that the opposition political parties and their leadership in Hungary and Turkey are desperate to change the status quo. My interpretation of this is that elections for the opposition political parties in Hungary and Turkey are no longer about winning a majority to form a government so to exercise power and gain the opportunity to put their programme in action. However, it has subtly evolved from giving a kick to the governing political party to almost toppling the governing political party through an election that is usually not fought on fair and open grounds. 

What can explain is that by the opposition political parties’ oversight of their original purpose in politics, as well as playing politics with the rules set by Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey, either voluntarily or involuntarily, which does not change the outcome. Nevertheless, in this way the opposition political parties play an essential part in legitimising the autocratic political systems Orban and Erdogan has established over the last decade in their respective countries. 

I argue that, in the case of Hungary, the opposition political parties should go back to their roots and remember, what kind of Hungary they envisage, instead of putting all their energy in forming alliances to overthrow Orban’s administration.

They should look for answers to the following questions: do you want an open and democratic Hungary, which respects the EU values? What is your position on illiberal democracy? Do you prefer free Media? Do you aspire Hungary as a migrant-friendly country? How economically well off do you imagine Hungary? Then look for fresh policy ideas to develop attractive party programmes that could address these questions.They must also look for a leader who could convince the electorate that they could deliver on these policy ideas.

Otherwise, drawing on the Turkish case, I would say the following could be the future for the opposition political parties in Hungary: (i) perceived ‘lack of distinctiveness’; (ii) ‘disenchanted voters’; and (iii) ‘intensified polarisation’.

When political parties agree to form alliances on several occasions, my observation is that they end up losing their distinct characteristics in the eyes of the electorate. For instance, when the Turkish People’s Party (CHP) united with the Good Party (IP), Felicity Party (SP) and Democrat Party (DP) in 2018. It has raised many question marks about how is it possible for these political parties to come together while they sharply differ on issues like religion and nationalism. They ultimately caused a loss of confidence in politicians among the electorates.

The electorate observed the leadership of the opposition political parties as too soft on the issues that are too critical for them. When what differs political parties from each other disappears from the political spectrum, I predict that there would be an increase in disenchanted voters who not only have no confidence in political parties but also cannot feel any affiliation to them in terms of interest and values. In the case of Turkey, it is difficult to measure what impact the alliance among the opposition politicians have on the voter turnout since voting is compulsory. However, I will watch out for Hungary.

While polarisation is partly an indication of a healthy democracy since it means all segments of the society are allowed to express their differences freely, however alliances formed between the opposition political parties could produce an intensified polarisation of politics and society, sharply dividing the society into two camps. For instance, in the case of Turkey, the society is divided between anti-Erdogan and pro-Erdogan camps, and the divisions are sharpened each and every time there is an election. Similarly, in Hungary, we see an anti-Orban camp versing pro-Orban, which is subtly evolving. I argue that this not least is dangerous, but more importantly overshadows other interests and values of the electorate, which should be at the forefront of the political parties’ agendas and narratives.

The post Why alliance formation among opposition political parties is not a good idea? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This month 59 years ago – on 13 August 1961 – Berliners woke up to find that a wall was being built to split their city in two. To say it was a huge shock is an understatement.

It was not until 28 years later – in November 1989 – that Berliners ripped the wall down, using their hands and hammers.

It was a momentous moment in our continent’s history.

It led to the downfall of the Soviet communist regime, followed eventually by applications to join the European Union by most of the former Iron Curtain countries, fully supported and encouraged by our UK government.

It’s an event worth remembering, celebrating and, most of all, understanding.

Because for much of the last century, it was not just a major city, but our entire continent that was split in two, brutally separating European families and friends, communities and countries.

The planet’s only two world wars both originated right here, on our continent.

For hundreds of years, Europe was a continent whose history was regularly punctuated by the most vicious and nasty conflicts, wars and political oppression.

Between 1914 and 1945, around 100 million people in Europe needlessly lost their lives as a direct result of those wars, conflicts and oppression – including millions murdered on an industrial scale as a result of genocide.

It’s a shocking, despicable history of violence and subjugation, for which no one can be proud or nostalgic.

The second, and hopefully last, world war came to an end in 1945.

But then, instead of celebrating Europe’s liberation from Nazism, half of Europe’s countries found themselves consumed and subjugated by another totalitarian regime, Communism.

It was only 44 years later, as the Berlin wall began to crumble, that those countries could begin to see and feel freedom at last.

This was Europe’s gruelling and arduous road to peace and liberation that we should surely reflect upon.

When I recently visited Amsterdam, my Dutch friend said to me:

“Why are you doing Brexit? Europe is integrated now!”

Maybe this is something we, as islanders, simply don’t understand as deeply as those who live on the mainland of our continent.

Europe has suffered profound pain on its path to find peace and ‘integration’, following centuries of wars.

For many, the Second World War only ended in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the half of our continent that was hidden from us behind an ‘Iron Curtain’ was liberated at last.

We saw the fall of the oppressive Soviet Union, and many of the countries that had been trapped in its sphere then re-joined our family of countries through the European Union.

Following our continent’s long and harrowing journey, we have found peace between each other, and yes, integration at last.

And yet, in response, Britain is on a rapid road to an unharmonious Brexit, snubbing our friends and neighbours on our own continent, and putting at risk Europe’s profound and remarkable accomplishments of recent decades.

We may not be building a brick wall between our country and the rest of our continent, but Brexit is a wall nonetheless, that needlessly separates and divides us from our European family, friends and neighbours.

Do we really know what we’re doing?

• Watch this 3-minute video about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989:

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

• Share this article on Facebook:

→ Brexit forgets historyTHE RISE AND FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL – 3-minute videoThis morning 59 years ago – on 13…

Posted by Jon Danzig on Thursday, 13 August 2020

 

The post Brexit forgets history appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

In the coming months, MEPs are set to vote on the EU’s long-term budget, a new climate law and continue to debate the future of Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

In the coming months, MEPs are set to vote on the EU’s long-term budget, a new climate law and continue to debate the future of Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The BBC call them migrants; the Prime Minister and some other media call them illegal; some Tory MPs and Nigel Farage call them ‘invaders’.

They are none of those. They are mostly desperate, destitute, stateless men, women and children fleeing from war, torture, oppression and persecution.

Nobody risks their lives across treacherous waters in unsuitable and unsafe boats unless they are deeply distressed and determined, with nothing left to lose.

Why don’t they seek asylum in the first safe country or countries they reach? Because it isn’t that simple. You may think it is, but it isn’t.

• For one thing, some countries don’t want them. They really don’t.
• For another, escaping from danger – genuine, terrifying, deadly danger – is just part of it.

Then what?

Your country has been lost to you. The place you grew up, had family, memories, possessions, your home, your career. Now unsafe, maybe never safe to return.

You have to start again, either alone, or whoever you managed to bring with you.

Just a few want to get to the UK. Really, by comparison, it’s a tiny number. But the ones who tenaciously want to make it to our shores against all odds often have compelling reasons.

Speaking English, having family already here, colonial links; all high on the list.

 THEY ARE NOT MIGRANTS; THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL Some politicians and media call refugees migrants. That’s entirely wrong.

• The term migrant means a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions. Migrants voluntarily leave their home countries for another and can voluntarily return home at any time.

That’s not the case for refugees.

• The term refugee means a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster. They have to leave their homes involuntarily and they cannot return.

Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, says those who get here illegally are illegal and will be treated accordingly. It’s beyond bloody nasty.

It’s not asylum seekers who are illegal; it’s Mr Johnson for proposing that asylum seekers should be turned away, which would go against international law.

What other way is there for an asylum seeker to reach the UK unless by so-called illegal means?

Asylum can only usually be sought in the UK once in the UK. What a conundrum.

If the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary really cared about the plight, and safety, of desperate refugees (yes, most, but not all, are genuine refugees) then they would make the criminally induced hazardous journey across the English Channel entirely unnecessary.

The UK only takes a relatively low number of asylum seekers. We’re yet another so-called civilised country that doesn’t really want them.

If we wanted to help, we could allow refugees to apply for asylum without first having to endure a perilous voyage across the Channel to get here.

By making such a chancy crossing the only way to seek asylum here, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are complicit in aiding and abetting odious gangsters who are making millions out of desolate people.

The language and actions of our current government are beyond despicable.

Like some of our media, they are advocating sheer hate against people who, in many cases, have been devastated as a direct result of our country’s violent interventions of their homes.

 SHAME ON BORIS JOHNSON Let’s be clear. Refugees are innocent.

• Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is no such entity as an illegal asylum seeker or refugee.
• Under international law – signed up to by the UK – it is accepted that asylum seekers may often need to use irregular and illegal routes and cross many borders before applying for asylum.
• Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is no legal obligation for an asylum seeker to seek asylum or to stay in the first safe country they reach.
• Under international law – signed up to by the UK – there is an absolute obligation to accept and offer refuge to asylum seekers who have genuinely had to escape from war and danger in their home countries.

Yes, the UK does offer asylum to those in that category who make it to our shores. But only after ensuring that they must first endure the most terrifying journey to get here.

Shame on you Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and those other politicians and media who promote that it’s the asylum seekers who are acting illegally.

• Watch this 2-minute video on how asylum seekers are being called ‘illegal’

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

• Share this article on Facebook:

→ Shame on Boris Johnson – 2-minute videoREFUGEES ARE NOT MIGRANTS OR ILLEGAL The BBC call them migrants; the Prime…

Posted by Jon Danzig on Tuesday, 11 August 2020

The post Refugees are innocent appeared first on Ideas on Europe.