Tag Archives: European Union

The Unexpected Consequences of Brexit

As the result of the referendum regarding the UK’s membership in the EU begin to sink in it seems more and more people are now at first coming to terms with what it actually means to exit the union. It’s been reported from different sources that supporters of the leave campaign, the so called “Brexiters”, are starting to have regrets. Regarding the many millions of pounds that were said, in the campaign, could be allocated to the NHS instead of the EU in case of an exit it has become clear now that such promises cannot be made. This is just an example, but there are many things that, in light of the actual outcome of the vote, look slightly different from what was described in the campaign. It seems twisted facts, statistics and general numbers were used in campaigns on both sides and it should be no wonder if people feel misinformed or even set up to cast their vote in a certain way. The fact that some who did vote for a Brexit feel disappointed with the outcome of the vote all the same, motivating this with that they didn’t think it would come to this, really says something about the seriousness with which voters have approached the referendum. It almost seems it has been thought of as a trial or a test run, something in which one can cast a vote just for amusement, and which, after it’s clear that the UK has decided to leave the EU, has alarm bells ringing everywhere. It is fair to say that to hold a referendum on things like this, to let the people have a voice, is consonant with democratic values. Of course it is, but then people also need to understand the power of every vote. Or is it that people were fully aware that the economy would take a hit in case of a Brexit, but decided to cast their vote in favour all the same because they simply thought things couldn’t get any worse, and that while things get harder short-term the economic situation will improve in the long run. Many voters from economically depressed regions of the UK, who actually receive significant amounts of EU aid, voted, as it turns out, in favour of a Brexit. The fact that the economy would be negatively affected is no surprise either, the IMF predicted this way in advance of 23 June. The outcome of the referendum is indeed hard to analyse, trying to make sense of peoples’ motivation to vote in certain ways can be quite confusing. One of the most important drivers has been the question of migration, the general desire of decentralised power and for the UK to control its own borders. It seems many voters have focused hard on that, and by doing so all the other effects a Brexit would have on the country have been forgotten. The UK is not the only country where people feel this way, but over the last couple of years across the European Union there has been talks about how the increasingly centralised political power is damaging the sovereignty of nation states. Using this as an argument in a campaign to leave the EU is putting fuel on a fire that is already burning quite bright. The question about an EU membership has been an emotional one for many, and it’s likely that a fair share of the “Brexiters” just want to go back to the way things were before, a form of status quo. Whether or not there will actually be any “old ways” to go back to is questionable though, not only because globalisation is really only going in one direction and it is increasingly harder for nations to get by on their own, but also because the UK itself will likely see internal changes. The decision to leave the EU has sparked up conversation about referendums of independence here and there, causing the United Kingdom to resemble more a soon to be broken kingdom. Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, has said that it is highly likely a second referendum on independence for Scotland will be held amid the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Perhaps the result of such a vote would differ from the first one, held in 2014, as it was clear after 23 June that a majority of the Scottish voters were in favour of remaining in the EU. Sinn Fein also called for a referendum on independence form the UK for Northern Ireland, and a reunification with the 26 counties that make up the republic of Ireland. Considering all the potential negative consequences of the decision that may have been overlooked or at least given less consideration than necessary it is fair to expect that more and more people will have regrets in the near future. A petition to hold a second referendum had gathered millions of signatures in only a few days, and since it passed the minimum requirement of 100 000 signatures Parliament will consider it for debate. As David Cameron who promoted the stay campaign will step down as Prime Minister it will be his successor who will deal with the UK-EU divorce. In other words it will take time before article 50 will be applied and an application for an exit will officially be submitted. The question is whether there will be an opportunity in that time to grant the petitioners a second referendum. Perhaps the Britons will be offered a second chance at having a say in this since it is rather obvious many of the voter didn’t really know what it was exactly they were having a say in, or perhaps they have made their bed, so to speak, and now they’ll have to lie in it.

UK Votes Brexit

The world woke up on Friday to find out that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union (EU). As the markets tumbled overnight, with the pound plunging to record lows, uncertainty has taken over across the UK as British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he will step down in the fall.

Polling stations opened on 23 June at 7 AM BST and closed at 10 PM BST. While polls indicated shortly after voting ended that the Remain camp was going to be the likely winner, overnight, as the vote count came in, it increasingly became apparent that Brits had voted to leave the EU. While Prime Minister David Cameron had urged the country to vote Remain, he was ultimately defeated by 52% to 48% despite London, Scotland and Northern Ireland all backing staying in. The referendum turnout was 71.8% – with more than 30 million people voting. It was the highest turnout at a UK-wide vote since 1992. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has hailed Thursday’s vote as the UK’s “independence day.” Mr Farage, who has over the past twenty years campaigned for Britain to leave the EU, told cheering supporters that “this will be a victory for ordinary people, for decent people.” Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has stated that the EU vote “makes clear that the people of Scotland see their future as part of the European Union” after all 32 local authority areas returned majorities for Remain. It is thought that Scotland may seek another referendum on separation from the UK.

The impact of the vote however has already been felt across the UK and on international markets, with the pound falling to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985 as the markets reacted to the results. Bank of England governor Mark Carney has stated that UK banks’ “substantial capital and huge liquidity” allowed them to continue to lend to businesses and households, adding that the Bank of England is ready to provide an extra £250 billion of support.

PM to Step Aside

Despite MP’s signing a letter overnight urging Prime Minister David Cameron to stay on whatever the result, on Friday morning the Prime Minister announced that he will step down by October after the UK voted to leave the EU. Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, he disclosed that he would attempt to “steady the ship” over the coming weeks and months, noting however that “fresh leadership” was needed. Flanked by his wife Samantha, Prime Minister Cameron indicated that he had informed the Queen of his decision to remain in place for the short term and then hand over to a new prime minister by the time of the Conservative conference in October. He has indicated that it will be for the new prime minister to carry out negotiations with the EU and invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would effectively give the UK two years in order to negotiate its withdrawal.

Process to Leave the EU

While Britain is set to be the first country to leave the EU since its formation, the Leave vote does not immediately mean that Britain ceases to be a member of the 28-nation bloc.

That process could take a minimum of two years, with Leave campaigners suggesting during the referendum campaign that it should not be completed until 2020 – the date of the next scheduled general election. Once Article 50 has been triggered, a country cannot re-join the EU without the consent of all member states. Prime Minister Cameron previously indicated that he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a Leave vote. However Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who led the campaign to get Britain out of the EU, have disclosed that the prime minister should not rush into it. They have also indicated that they want to make immediate changes before the UK actually leaves the EU, such as curbing the power of EU judges and limiting the free movement of workers, potentially in breach of the UK’s treaty obligations. The government will also have to negotiate its future trading relationship with the EU and fix trade agreements with non-EU countries.

In Whitehall and Westminster, there will now begin the massive task of unstitching the UK from more than 40 years of EU law, deciding which directives and regulations to keep, amend or ditch.

EU Leaders Call for Stability and Solidarity in Wake of Vote

In the wake of the UK’s vote to leave the EU, shocked EU leaders have called for stability and solidary but also for change and reform. While President of the European Council Donald Tusk has stated that the remaining 27 members are determined to stay united, leaders like Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi have stated that the EU had to change and become “more human and more just.”

The European parliament has called for a special session for Tuesday 28 June to assess the vote, while foreign ministers of the six founding nations of the EU – Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg – will met in Berlin on 25 June. Some leaders of EU member states, such as France’s Francois Hollande, held their own crisis talks on Friday. European parliament president Martin Schulz, president of the European Council Donald Tusk, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte also went into emergency talks.

European Leaders Call for Britons to Remain in EU

Anxious European leaders have issued a number of calls to Britons to stay in the European Union (EU) rather than to risk years of economic damage, however the prime minister whose country will chair the EU from July has stated that it must prepare for a Brexit.

From German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to the heads of the EU institutions in Brussels and the man who forged the modern EU, Jacques Delors, they said that remaining in the EU would be better for Britain and Europe. While they are aware that outside pressure may be counterproductive, they all stressed that it was for voters to decide. While most European leaders have previously muted appeals to the British for fear of being counter productive, a swing towards Brexit in opinion polls a week before the 23 June referendum has sparked deep concern about the impact on the EU, effectively prompting a greater readiness to warn Britons of the harsh consequences.

Chancellor Merkel, who did her best in order to help British Prime Minister David Cameron negotiate a special status deal for Britain in February, has stated that the UK could be shut out of the prized single market on which its large financial services sector is heavily reliant. She stated that “if Britain votes to leave the EU, it will no longer be able to benefit from the advantages of the European common market,” adding that any negotiation of future terms of access would start with Britain bong on the outside. She noted, “I can’t imagine that would be any kind of advantage…But the decision is ultimately up to the Britons.”

While finance ministers from the nineteen EU countries that use the euro currency met on 16 June in Luxembourg, their chairman, Dutch minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, stating that they would not discuss any contingency plans for Brexit. While he acknowledged concern about the British vote, he stated that there was no “Plan B” to deal with it, adding that he was confident that Britons would vote to remain in the EU. That confidence however is not widely shared in Brussels, especially in the past two weeks as polls have swung towards Brexit. One senior diplomat has stated, “we are approaching the point of no return. Brexit is now a visible scenario…We are talking, loudly but not in public. But there is nothing we can do.”

Robert Fico, the outspoken prime minister of Slovakia, who met with Merkel on Thursday, has also indicated that he thinks Britain will vote to leave. He stated, “if you’re watching football and your team is three behind in the 90^th minute of the game, its unlikely that there will be a turnaround and that suddenly you will win.” His country’s six-month presidency of the EU begins in July, and would effectively give Slovakia some role in the start of negotiations with a Britain set on leaving the EU. Fico has warned that the polls shows that it is now time to be “realistic” about preparing for that eventuality.

While European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the Union Chief executive, told a questioner at an economic form in Russia that Brexit would not put “the EU in danger of death” he has cautioned against a rise of euro-scepticism across Europe. And like European Council President Donald Tusk, who chairs EU summits, Juncker warned that a Leave vote would unleash “major uncertainty.” Tusk, a former Polish prime minister, made one of his most impassioned calls yet for Britons to stay, saying, “Europe without the United Kingdom will be distinctly weaker. This is obvious. Equally obvious is that the UK outside the EU will be distinctly weaker too,” warning that Brexit would bring “seven years of limbo and uncertainty in our relations.”

Juncker’s distant predecessor from 1985 – 1995, Jacques Delors, has also issued a statement in a bid to dispel rumours that he favoured a Brexit to let other states to integrate further. The architect of the euro single currency stated, “I consider the UK’s participation in the European Union to be a positive element both for the British and for the Union.”

Poland and the EU Commission

Since the elections in the autumn of last year Poland has certainly seen a hectic couple of months. Soon after forming government the Law and Justice Party, led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, passed a law that would weaken the court, requiring, for example, a two-thirds majority for a decision to be binding. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has later fought this, calling it unconstitutional. However, this ruling has been dismissed by the government. Towards the end of last year the government also introduced a bill to reform the country’s public broadcasters, which would empower the government to appoint or dismiss the country’s media executives. The national media council is closely tied to the Law and Justice party, and giving this council more power would, in essence, mean that the government would have a much greater influence over the country’s broadcasting of TV and Radio. These changes of the constitution and violations of democratic values in Poland has caused the EU to react. During the spring of this year opposition protests have flared up over the legislation that gives the government more influence over the justice system. This legislation has been rejected by the top court of the country, claiming that it limits the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice. The Law and Justice Party, in response, has contested the court’s right to rule at all in the matter. The government has been pressured internationally to recognise the court’s decision, not just from the EU and from human rights organisations, but from the US as well. Jaroslaw Kaczynski has seemed fearless regarding the risk of open conflict with the EU as he has officially rejected foreign advice and pleas to reverse the changes his party has made, saying that Poland will solve these matters on its own, without foreign intervention. In January the EU Commission activated its rule of law ‘framework’ in relation to Poland. This framework is an instrument aimed at protecting EU values like the rule of law, democracy, equality and the respect of human rights. It does not give the Commission power to fine the Polish government, cut any union funds, or suspend the right to vote in union matters, but it allows the commission to talk to, and negotiate with, Poland for a solution. In May Poland was given what seemed like an ultimatum by Brussels, which stated that the country’s leaders would have to show that progress is being made to remedy the situation. Failure to respond adequately to this would lead to new actions from the EU commission under the “rule of law framework. Vice-president of the European Commission, Frans Timmerman, has expressed recently that the changes to the Polish judiciary pose a risk to the principle of rule of law. Poland on the other hand is directing sharp criticism toward the commission over this matter, and claims that the EU has other reasons for interfering with what is in essence Poland’s domestic concerns. Polish Justice Minister, Zbigniew Ziobro, has accused Brussels of blackmailing Poland to force the country to take more than the 7,600 Syrian migrants agreed. Since Poland did not respond adequately to the warnings from Brussels the commission has activated a second stage under the framework, marking the first time ever this had been implemented. This can ultimately lead to the revocation of voting rights, however such penalties can only be implemented by the EU council and it would take a decision with a four-fifths majority that “the clear danger of a grave infringement” of common values exists in Poland. This would mean that Poland would officially be given recommendations on how to fix the underlying problems. Failure to do so would lead to EU Council conclusion that these “grave infringements” is in fact occurring. But this must be established unanimously, and if so, it would lead to the suspension of Poland’s right to vote. It is highly unlikely however, that all remaining 27 EU members would agree on this. The Polish government has a close ally in Viktor Orbán of Hungary, for example, and he has reportedly said that he would never let such a thing happen. Poland has reportedly considered going to the top European Union court to challenge the EU commission’s procedure against it, if Brussels doesn’t lowers its pressure. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has said “The procedure that is currently being used against us is a non-treaty procedure, a made-up one, and it can be challenged in the Court of Justice of the European Union at any moment.” Some say perhaps the best chance to influence the Polish government to reverse these changes now lies with the Americans. Poland has historically considered the US a close ally and is heavily dependent on NATO military support in the face of aggressions from Russia. Since Poland will be the host of the next big NATO summit, scheduled to take place in July, and is also hoping to secure larger contingents of allied troops on its territory, a clear message from Washington officials could perhaps have the desired effect. It is a dynamic situation and many thing might come to change over the course of the summer.

Seven Years On: Chilcot Iraq War Inquiry Report to Finally Be Released

The official inquiry into the Iraq War will be published on 6 July, less than a fortnight after the United Kingdom holds a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU)

An announcement on the inquiry’s website indicated that “Sir John Chilcot and the Prime Minister have agreed that the Iraq Inquiry’s report will be published on Wednesday 6 July 2016.” The news comes after Prime Minister David Cameroon confirmed that the report would not be published until after the 23 June EU referendum, effectively prompting criticism that the delay was to avoid embarrassing key ‘In’ campaigners.

Tony Blair, who was the Labour Prime Minister at the time of the 2003 conflict, is expected to be criticised in the report, along with other members of his government. According to Sir John, the chairman of the inquiry which started work seven years ago, the 2.6 million word report has now been vetted for national security breaches “without the need for any redactions,” adding that British spies had completed the redaction process in mid-May. The delay however was branded a “stitch up” by anti-EU MPs. Former shadow Tory home secretary David Davis MP disclosed that the delay was based on the “thinnest of excuses” and that it looked like the publication of th report had been pushed back deliberately until after the EU referendum. He stated “at long last at least it will give some comfort and closure to the loved ones of the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice…Nevertheless it is still outrageous that this vital report should have been delayed for so long for seven years in total,” adding, “even worse it is now delayed on the thinnest of excuses until after the EU referendum and it is the most disgraceful thing of all to put the stitching up the referendum ahead of the rights of the families of the Iraqi war dead.” Matthew Jury, a solicitor who is acting for 29 families of British soldiers who died in the Iraq War, also stated that “if national security checking of the report took two weeks, the Families are bewildered by the Inquiry’s position that it needs another two months for the simple task of proofreading and formatting,” adding, “with all the resources of the state at its disposal, absent an explanation, the Inquiry’s claim that I needs until 6 July is simply not credible.”

Sir John however has defended the two month-delay, stating that “this will allow suitable time for the Inquiry to prepare the 2.6 million word report for publication, including final proof reading, formatting, printing and the steps required for electronic publications.” Sources close to the inquiry have reported that the timing of the referendum had no bearing on the publication date.

Families of British soldiers killed in Iraq have also condemned the decision to delay publication in order to allow for Sir John Chilcot’s report to be proofread and typeset as “appalling.”