European Union

Following his ‘victory’ in Brussels, UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained outside 10 Downing Street that ‘our plan gives us the best of both worlds.’ This plan not only underlined Britain’s special status, but also that in a reformed Europe, Britain would have ‘full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices.’ The Prime Minister argued that his newly obtained special status meant that ‘we will never join the euro, we will never be part of eurozone bailouts, never be part of the passport-free no border area or a European army or a European super state.’

Crucially, Cameron argued that ‘leaving Europe would threaten our economic and national security.’ Indeed it would. For that reason, it is remarkable that his continental colleagues did not say to him, ‘Dear David, as leaving the Union threatens Britain’s security, we are not willing to discuss a new deal. This is your problem. Full stop.’ As the final deal provides a step towards the European Union’s gradual disintegration, this would have been a better strategy for the Union as a whole. For Cameron, explaining that leaving the Union threatens Britain’s economic and national security would have been a far better strategy than a symbolic deal that cannot for its contents be defended.

“A ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe”

Why has Cameron put Britain’s national and economic security at risk? First, for historical, cultural and geographical reasons, the British have always considered themselves special. Second, a ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe. Less than a hundred years ago, the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe’s total land area. Beginning with the very costly Boer Wars in the late 19th century, the British saw their position erode. By the start of the 20th century, the United States had begun to challenge Britain’s position. Two world wars brought the British Empire to the verge of bankruptcy, starting the process of decolonisation. What remained was a United Kingdom and a Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Now, the United Kingdom itself is under threat. A ‘Leave’ vote will trigger a new debate on Scottish independence. What is left of the British Empire will be a rump state England.

Third, as the British think they are special, they tend to ignore the new geopolitical realities. Until recently, the rise of the United States compensated for Britain’s loss of global influence. But the power of the West as a whole is eroding, leaving nothing to compensate for Britain’s further loss of power. Britain outside the EU could focus more on the Commonwealth of Nations, especially India. But apart from having a seat at the United Nations Security Council, Britain – or the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland after Scottish independence – has little to offer.

“Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy”

Feng Zhongping, the Assistant President of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, has argued that ‘from China’s point of view, we don’t think that the UK, or France, or Germany or any single European country can play a global role. But the EU is different. It is the biggest market, and China’s biggest trade partner. The EU is seen as a major power in the world. If the UK left, it would hurt the UK much more than the EU.’ Feng is right.

Due to budget cuts, the Falklands War of 1982 is a naval operation that cannot be repeated. The Iraq War of 2003 already demonstrated that Britain lacks the capabilities for credible expeditionary warfare. In addition, Brexit will most likely lead to economic stagnation. Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy. As the global economy stagnates and the coming internet-of-things revolution has a negative impact on employment figures, the possible economic gains of a Brexit are likely to be nullified.

A vote to leave the EU threatens Britain’s economic and national security. As David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum during his electoral campaign, Brexit shows again that politicians are willing to put national security at risk for electoral purposes. Cameron can still win the referendum. But as Britain’s former Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, rightly observed, no major referendum on Europe anywhere in the last 15 years has voted in favour. This is a sobering thought.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – <p&p>

The post Cameron’s referendum puts votes before security appeared first on Europe’s World.

Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson said that if Britain left the EU, “we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels”.

Mr Johnson made his remarks after Michael Gove and Philip Hammond became the first two Cabinet ministers openly to support leaving the EU unless there is significant reform.

But responding in his Telegraph article, titled ‘We must be ready to leave the EU if we don’t get what we want’, Mr Johnson claimed that, “the question of EU membership is no longer of key importance to the destiny of this country”.

In his article, Mr Johnson added that he supports an EU referendum – but warned that Britain’s problems will not be solved by simply leaving the EU as many of his Conservative colleagues apparently believe.

The mayor asserted:

“If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by ‘Bwussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”

He added:

“Why are we still, person for person, so much less productive than the Germans? That is now a question more than a century old, and the answer is nothing to do with the EU. In or out of the EU, we must have a clear vision of how we are going to be competitive in a global economy.”

Mr Johnson warned that there might be a risk that international companies could stop investing in Britain if we left the EU. He also cautioned that UK firms could be put at a “long-term disadvantage” if Britain was unable to “influence the standards and regulations in Brussels.”

There was also an argument, alerted Mr Johnson, that the EU, “is better placed to strike trade deals with the US, or China, than the UK on its own” – although this proposition hadn’t actually been tested.

Mr Johnson added that, “More generally, there is a risk that leaving the EU will be globally interpreted as a narrow, xenophobic, backward-looking thing to do.”

He wrote that there may be other good reasons for Britain to stay in the EU, “but I can’t think of them now.” On the other hand, if Britain left the EU, “we could save money… we get back our sovereignty.. we can no longer blame Brussels.”

But Mr Johnson’s article concluded that we “have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Bwussels..”

And in a nuanced comment on the EU referendum debate, the London Mayor urged, “we need a much more informed debate about the pluses and minuses of EU membership”.

It should be noted that Mr Johnson wrote his article for The Telegraph back in May 2013.

Now, Mr Johnson is campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union. Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph he stated, “There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU.”

The influential economist, John Maynard Keynes, is often quoted as saying, “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

Have the facts about the EU fundamentally changed since 2013?

No.

So why has Mr Johnson now changed his mind and is campaigning for Britain to leave the EU to ‘solve our problems’?

Your guess is as good as mine..

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• Boris Johnson’s big blunder
  
• They want their country back, not yours
  
• Never again? It’s happening again
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

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

_________________________________________________

 Join and share the discussion on Facebook:

The post How Boris changed his mind on Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Greece v Commission
State aid
The Court confirms the obligation on the Greek State to recover from Greek farmers unlawful State aid of €425 million paid as a result of adverse weather conditions

This is Tuesday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Turkey's Ahmet Davutoglu, left, at a post-summit press conference early Tuesday morning

It has become customary to assume EU summits aimed at tackling the ongoing refugee crisis produce much rhetoric but little meat. But last night’s gathering of European leaders with Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish prime minister, may prove the one that broke the rule.

In talks that went on for 12 hours, the two sides emerged with the outlines of a deal that, if finalised next week, is as sweeping in its implications as it is in its substance. The German-engineered plan would allow the EU to turn back almost all migrants washing ashore in Greece and return them to Turkey. But the price will be high: in addition to billions of additional European aid to Ankara, the EU would expedite a long-dormant visa liberalisation programme that could provide Turkish nationals visa-free travel into the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone as soon as June.

That a significant deal was in the offing was clear late last week when Donald Tusk, the European Council president, travelled to Ankara and received strong signals that Mr Davutoglu was open to a massive programme of refugee returns. But the plan now on the table is significantly more ambitious than the one Mr Tusk was considering. It was driven almost entirely by Mr Davutoglu and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, with the help of Mark Rutte, her Dutch counterpart and holder of the EU’s rotating presidency. The EU’s nominal leaders (Mr Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president) were almost entirely cut out of the deal-making, which began in earnest when the Turkish, German and Dutch leaders held a pre-summit meeting on Sunday. In her press conference, Ms Merkel acknowledged as much, saying Mr Davutoglu presented new demands at the Sunday meeting – and she endorsed them wholeheartedly.

Read more

AMENDMENTS 1 - 163 - Draft motion for a resolution on the 2015 Report on Albania
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 200 - Draft report Space capabilities for European security and defence
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

This is the Monday edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Ahmet Davutoglu, centre, meets with his German and Dutch counterparts ahead of the summit

EU leaders gather in Brussels today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s prime minister, to once again attempt to sort out a deal that could stop the massive influx of refugees crossing into Europe from Turkish shores. This time, however, rather than high-minded rhetoric, there appears to be a workable deal on the table: Mr Davutoglu has signalled his readiness to agree a scheme that would allow the EU to return tens of thousands of non-Syrian migrants trying to enter Greece back to Turkey. Add in a new Nato mission that was yesterday given the authority to operate in Turkish waters and will help Greek and Turkish authorities hunt down human smugglers, and the pieces of effective response may finally be falling into place.

There’s one small problem, however: the UN isn’t sure the plan is legal under international law, which prohibits “pushbacks” of potential asylum seekers, who under the Geneva Conventions must receive a fair hearing first. Vincent Cochetel, who is leading the UN refugee agency’s response to the European crisis, hinted EU courts would find the tactic in violation of EU laws which incorporate the Geneva Conventions. Human rights groups also question its legality.

Read more

The Monthly Highlights publication provides an overview, at a glance, of the on-going work of the policy departments, including a selection of the latest and forthcoming publications, and a list of future events.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established under the League of Nations. Located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the ICJ is composed of 15 judges, who are elected by the U.N. General Assembly to serve nine-year terms.

The ICJ is empowered to decide two types of cases. First, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions when requested to do so by the Security Council, the General Assembly or several other United Nations bodies authorized to request such opinions. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued twenty-one advisory opinions.

Second, the Court can exercise jurisdiction in a contentious case between two or more States with the consent of the parties. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, except to the extent that a State espouses their claims. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued judgments in thirty-nine contentious cases. That amounts to the Court hearing an average of less than two cases each year. During the 1990s, however, the Court became increasingly active, and it currently has eight contentious cases, and two requests for advisory opinions on its docket.

Consent to jurisdiction over contentious cases can be given in three ways. First, States can agree to have their disputes decided by the ICJ on an ad hoc basis. Second, many treaties contain provisions giving the ICJ jurisdiction over any dispute between parties to the treaty as to its interpretation or application. Third, States may make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ statute, agreeing to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to other States that have made a like declaration. As of 1997, fifty-nine States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Declarations made under Article 36(2) may specifically exclude certain categories of disputes from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. Such declarations are subject to reciprocity, and a defendant state against which a proceeding is brought may invoke an exclusion not stipulated in its own declaration but included in the declaration of the plaintiff state.

The United States had agreed in 1946 to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with two principal exceptions. The first, known as the “Connelly reservation,” provided that the United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. The second, known as the “Vandenberg reservation” exempted the United States from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction with respect to any disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court. After the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s suit against the United States concerning U.S. support of the Contras and mining of Nicaragua harbors, the United States terminated its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The termination of the United States’ acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction has not completely immunized the United States from the ICJ. The United States has subsequently been hailed before the ICJ on several occasions pursuant to clauses contained in multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party. It has become the recent practice of the United States to make a reservation opting out of the ICJ jurisdiction clause of multilateral treaties at the time of ratification, but the United States continues to be party to over one hundred treaties containing an ICJ jurisdiction clause.

Judgments of the ICJ are binding between the parties. Under Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, all members of the United Nations have undertaken to comply with a judgment of the ICJ in any case to which they are parties. If a party fails to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, any other party may call on the Security Council to enforce the judgment. ICJ decisions are widely recognized as important statements of existing international law, and they are often cited as authority to support fundamental principles of international legal development.

Contentious cases usually involve three phases. First, the parties often request that the ICJ “indicate” provisional measures in order to preserve their respective rights while a case is pending. Decisions on provisional measures are usually issued within a few weeks from the initial request. While provisional measures are somewhat analogous to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order under U.S. domestic law, the court has never ruled whether an order indicating provisional measures is mandatory on the parties. The second phase involves challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the matter before making a decision. Finally, the Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the merits of the case. From start to finish, the ICJ may take several years to rule on a dispute. The final decision of the ICJ is not subject to appeal.

The post The International Court of Justice appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/62cfd496-6d9f-11e5-92fb-bc764e08d9b2_40.04_thumb_169_1456920696_1456920696_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The meeting of EU heads of state or government is being held with Turkey on 7 March 2016 in Brussels. It is devoted to the refugee crisis.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/a8444298-56f0-11e5-83d1-bc764e084e2e_16.86_thumb_169_1456333236_1456333236_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Environment meet in Brussels on 4 March 2016 to discuss the action plan for the circular economy and the follow-up to the Paris agreement on climate change.

Download this video here.