The UK Leaves the EU

THE UK LEAVES THE EU

 

in IP Watch at http://www.ip-watch.org/

After a long, lively, disputed and sometimes acrimonious campaign, the British people chose to leave the European Union. Over seventeen million people (52% of voters) stated their will to leave the euro-mess and go it alone.

Here are some notes on the referendum:

1- David Cameron is the most visible loser. He set the bar high when he committed to revamp the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU and then to put the British membership of the bloc up for a vote. Negotiations with the other 27 Member-States soon proved to be difficult (Treaty change was quickly set aside) and Cameron chose to settle with relatively meek concessions. The fact that he considered these were relevant enough to defend the “Remain” vote, showed that he was more committed to staying in the organisation than to bring home some substantive reforms. This way, he lost credibility among Conservative euro sceptics and did not acquire any from other sectors, such as Labour supporters. On the day after, he naturally resigned.

2- The Leavers (Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage) were the big winners. They assembled strong, focused and appealing campaigns in which the EU bureaucratic non-democratic behemoth, the recovery of sovereignty and national identity and immigration were the main messages hammered away. This message cut across the political and geographical spectrum, from Tories in the South of England to Labourites in the North and in Wales. Johnson and Gove can conceivably be the architects of the actual exit and their day-after posture was serious and reassuring.

3- Fearmongering and Foreign admonishments were among the main tools of the Remain campaign. I always found it incredibly stupid to use foreign meddling for domestic political gains. It is a tried and failed tactic. Most people are not keen on having foreigners tell them how to vote. Notwithstanding, this was used ad nauseam in this referendum: the EU, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the OECD, France, Germany, the United States, all chipped in with dire warnings of an impending apocalypse. This was obviously construed to be a gross self-interested exaggeration. Actually, this exorbitant concern scantily hid a more sincere worry: the impact of Brexit in their own countries. As the stock exchange downturn in Milan, New York, Paris and Frankfurt (all considerably sharper than in London) showed, this fear seemed to be warranted. Anyway, most voters did not buy into the notoriously overblown forecasts. This, eventually, undercut even the more realistic negative analyses.

4- Labour and Jeremy Corbyn were the outsiders of the referendum. The party still battered by last year’s devastating electoral defeat and the leader mostly aloof and ambivalent on the EU question. So much so, that the ever fundamentalist and intolerant “The Economist”, accused Corbyn of sabotaging the “Remain” campaign. The fact is that a great share of the Labour voters voted to leave and Jeremy Corbyn is already facing a leadership challenge.

5- In the UK, for the time being, most of the turmoil is political with both the Conservative and the Labour parties facing leadership change and challenge, respectively. Although that is a bit unsettling, it is not really out of the ordinary.

 

in “The Guardian” at http://www.theguardian.com/international

The British people’s decision to leave the EU is one of the most relevant events in International Relations in the 21 Century. Like most events of this magnitude, they entail risks, challenges and opportunities.

Going forward, it is clear that the risks are multilateral and not confined to the UK. However, even outside the EU, the United Kingdom has many assets and advantages which, coupled with some reforms to make her more competitive and shedding some of the more stifling European regulations, could make Brexit more of a winner than a setback.

I believe it to be more unlikely that the EU will be able to implement the huge changes it needs to leave the stasis it finds itself in.

BREXIT or BRITIN?

BREXIT OR BRITIN?

 

BREXIT OR BRITIN?

in “THE ECONOMIST” at www.economist.com  

This year will be marked by the British referendum on the United Kingdom’s staying in or leaving the European Union (EU). It is difficult to overstate the importance of a vote that will determine the fate of the 2^nd largest country in the EU and whether or not the EU will see its membership diminish for the first time ever.

Two things are evident: the majority of the British establishment supports the “In” vote and the other 27 member states also want the UK to stay. However, it is for neither of these groups to decide the outcome of the referendum. That will be for the British citizenry to decide, and they clearly have not made up their minds yet.

The “Stay” (or Britin) side, which is led by David Cameron and is also supported by Labour, the Liberals and the main Welsh and Scottish parties, will hail the agreement reached this month by Cameron in Brussels as guaranteeing enough concessions and changes as to reforming the EU to a certain extent and assuring a special status for the UK in the EU.

Amongst the former, there is the increase in competitiveness, the red tape cutting (both staple promises seldom fulfilled), the protection of the rights and interests of non-euro countries and  the red card, the supposedly veto power given to national parliaments over EU legislation. As for the latter, the Stayers will point to the exemption London guaranteed concerning the elusive “ever closer union” mantra and concessions on welfare payments to immigrants.

On the other hand, the “Leave” (or Brexit) camp, will stress the harm of Brussels’ smothering bureaucracy and its encroaching on British independence and sovereignty. Furthermore, they will present Mr Cameron’s deal with the other 27 states as nothing short of insignificant, noting that there is no real “sovereignty devolution” to Westminster. The Leavers will naturally be led by London’s Mayor and Conservative M.P. Boris Johnson, other Conservative heavyweights like Justice Secretary Michael Gove and, of course, the UKIP led by Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell.

 

David Cameron’s gamble: will it pay off?

in “THE ECONOMIST” at www.economist.com

The Britin camp will be favoured by the electorates’ tendency to vote conservatively in a referendum, i.e., choosing the supposedly safer option, the known one as opposed to the unknown. Their strategy will also be very much based on fearmongering about the mortal dangers involved in exiting the EU. Connected to this is the idea that the UK will stand to lose a lot economically if she leaves. Finally, they will be led by a Prime Minister who has recently been re-elected with an outstanding victory at the polls.

The Brexit camp will benefit by the agreement’s obvious shortcomings: there is no real reform of the EU, there is no real downsizing of the Brussels bureaucratic monster’s power and dimension, there is no real significant sovereignty devolution to London (no repatriation of EU social and employment laws, for instance) and there is no discernible contagion to other member states who seemingly are done with the EU’s overreach. Brexit will have the an and of counting with the support of most of the press which is strongly anti-EU. Finally, they will be counting on the natural aversion to the EU, a feeling which seems to be ingrained in a large part of the population.

In the end, the UK did extract some concessions in the deal and Britin will be able to extoll its benefits pointing that it would be difficult to have gone farther. This may be true, but it is really not a good deal: it was designed to attain the minimum standards so that Cameron could uphold it in the campaign trail and to prove that the 27 made a real effort to keep Great Britain in the fold.

That, however, falls very short of the goal of EU reform and sovereignty devolution. For that, Mr. Cameron would have to drive a much harder bargain, to spend much more time, diplomatic effort and cajoling and political capital, especially to engage with countries that might be more receptive to contain and reverse the EU’s overstretch.

Mr. Cameron chose instead to wrap up a deal as soon as possible for electoral expediency, convinced that the later the referendum were held, the worse his prospects would be. But his haste has weakened his case, opening his flank to corrosive attacks from Brexit.

By the Summer solstice we shall know if Mr. Cameron’s gambit paid off, or if both the United Kingdom and himself will be out.

The Refugees' Mess

THE REFUGEES’ MESS

In 2014 and 2015, most European countries have been struggling with the problems of refugees and immigration. The sheer dimension of the phenomenon (hundreds of thousands of persons, going on to the millions) and the short time-span over which it has developed, have caused huge humanitarian, economic, logistic, social, political and security problems.

The main routes to get from Africa and Asia into Europe.

in STRATFOR at www.stratfor.com

Let us try to approach this highly sensitive issue trying to avoid the emotion-laden, politically-correct speech.

THE ORIGINS: The refugee component of the problem derives from war and persecution and is, to a great extent, caused by the Syria Civil War. Four out of every five refugees nowadays are Syrian. Then, there are the wars in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflicts and persecutions in countries like Libya, Somalia, Eritrea, or the Sudans.

The evolution, resilience and lack of optimistic prospects for any of these situations DOES NOT point to any short-term satisfactory resolution, which means that each of them is going to continue “to produce” refugees.

The refugee surge has raised issues and problems of different natures:

HUMANITARIAN: This is the most dramatic feature of the crisis. Over 4 years of relentless war in Syria, have resulted in millions of refugees spilling out of her borders, plus about 8 million internally displaced. Three of Syria’s neighbours have obviously received by far the largest share of these refugees: Turkey – 2.5 million; Lebanon – 1 million; Jordan – 600.000. For equally obvious reasons, the other two neighbours (Israel and Iraq) do not count. Then, there are over a million (and counting) refugees pouring into Europe. These refugees deserve care, attention and respect.

ECONOMIC: The economic issues are pretty straightforward. This mass dislocation places a heavy burden on the frontline states (Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon) and on the countries of refugee entrance in Europe, mostly Italy and Greece. And there is only so much that each can bear, especially in economically vulnerable ones like Lebanon, Jordan and Greece.

LOGISTICS: No country was prepared to handle this flood of refugees. The overwhelming numbers strain the states’ services, hurt the refugees and cause tension and stress which, in turn, tends to aggravate the situation.

SOCIAL & POLITICAL: Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a fit of emotion, announced an open-door policy towards Syrian refugees. This apparently thoughtless outburst led to a renewed wave of people trying to get to Germany and caused a domino effect that placed further stress on countries such as Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia and Austria, some of which chastised the Chancellor for enticing more people to come to Europe. The domino effect found its way back to Germany, where not too few considered Merkel’s move hasty, extemporaneous and even reckless. Among these, were officials of Merkel’s own party and in Bavaria’s CSU. Not surprisingly, soon after, Germany started to backpedal on the open-door proclamation.

Instead, Germany decided that her generosity had to be shared by her neighbours and, in typical last decade authoritarian fashion, threatened the Visegrad Group (Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia) and Romania with punitive measures if they did not take more refugees. This bullying culminated in a majority vote in the European Council to impose quotas on member states.

Besides the Diktat trend that is increasingly Berlin’s modus operandi, there are some questions that beg clear answers:

* Why should countries have to contribute to Germany’s largesse?

* How will refugees feel about having to settle in countries that are reluctant to receive them?

* How will countries that are reluctant to receive a bigger number of refugees, will actually receive them? And how will their populations react?

* How will the increasingly large number of “false” Syrians from the Middle east, South Asia and North Africa be spotted, handled and eventually deported?

* How will the “free-riders” from the Balkans be processed?

* How will the security issue be handled, given that there is the real possibility (it is already most likely a fact) of there being members of terrorists organisations embedded in the refugee flux?

* How will the feelings, sensitivities and opinions of local and national communities be taken into account without labelling everyone as racist, fascist, or xenophobic, because most actually are not.

Finally, there are questions that should be asked about the refugees themselves.

If you are a refugee from a war zone, running from the danger of you or your family being killed, you do not get to be too choosy about where you end up. If you escape Syria and settle in Turkey, in Lebanon, or in Jordan, you are safe from violence and the war.

Ok, the conditions are prickly. So you try to get to Europe. However, once in Europe, Greece is not good for you. Neither is Serbia. Nor Hungary. Not even Italy. No, you have to go to Germany or Sweden. The way I see it, this is not fleeing from war anymore. You are becoming less of a refugee and more of an immigrant. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just that changing condition and motivation, so changes your status quo, too.

It is time to stop having a one-dimensional view of the refugees (true or fake), of the Europeans who want more or less refugees and/or immigrants. It is also time to stop bullying and demonising states and people because they think differently.

It is also about time to look deeper to what people are saying and doing. For instance, the Swedish Justice Minister, Morgan Johansson attacked Prime Minister David Cameron on the immigration issue saying he was “playing politics” and that Sweden granted many more asylum applications that the United Kingdom. Unfortunately for Mr. Johansson, there are figures that show that non-European foreigners in Sweden do not dwell that well: whereas the unemployment rate for Swedes is at 7%, for non-Europeans is a staggering 28%! On the other hand, in the UK the unemployment rate for Brits is 6% and for non-Europeans is 8%. So much for the evil British and the pristine Swedish.

The “producers” of refugees (the likes of Syria, Iraq, Eritrea, etc) are “producing” masses of refugees. The “consumers”/recipients of refugees are being overwhelmed by more refugees than they can or are willing to take.

So, what is the way out?

Unfortunately, there really isn’t one.

THE REFUGEE “PRODUCERS”: the Middle East Wars raging on are complex, multifaceted, entrenched, that feed on ethnic and sectarian fear and hatred and which are compounded by the involvement of multiple foreign actors with their own agendas. This means that the best solution which would be to deal with the problem at the source is not an option in the foreseeable future.

THE NEIGHBOURS: The countries neighbouring the conflicts are split into two groups: the ones that have not taken a significant number of refugees (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, or the Gulf States) do not give any sign of overture to change their stance. The ones that have borne the brunt of the effort have a limited economic, logistical and even political capability to keep on receiving refugees. So, with the will not on one hand and the cannot on the other, it is not realistic to expect that the Middle East can provide much more in terms of refugee relief.

THE EUROPEAN REFUGEE “CONSUMERS”:  This is where the attention is focused on. To be realistic, neither the take-every-refugee crowd, nor the no-entry sympathisers are tuned to reality.

It is neither feasible nor fair to just kick every would-be refugee out. It is neither feasible nor acceptable to many, to flood small communities with a wave of refugees. You cannot look the other way and pretend nothing is happening in Syria, but you cannot force refugees into places where they are clearly not welcome. You do not want people to linger indefinitely in refugee camps, but you do not want people to be attacked or rejected by locals who do not want to change their ancestral modus vivendi. You have a moral duty to help people in terrible distress and you have a moral and political duty to respect your fellow citizens and electors.

There needs to be good sense and balance approaching these issues. We do not live in an ideal world. Between receiving millions of people and kicking them all out, there are a million other alternatives. Each European country should find its point of equilibrium that mitigates the refugee problem and accommodates its population’s sensitivities. Diktats from Berlin or Brussels will only serve to increase feelings of revolt, resentment and rejection. That is to no one’s benefit.