Home » Posts tagged 'European Union' (Page 7)
Tag Archives: European Union
Four Ways That Will Measure Brexit Success
by John Brian Shannon | February 2, 2017
A brilliant group of academics and professionals have published a list of four questions that should be foremost in the minds of those wanting to negotiate a successful Brexit result as they navigate through the process of leaving the European Union.
These economists, lawyers, sociologists, and political scientists suggest that four important metrics need to be considered for any final Brexit agreement to be termed a “success” by a majority of Britons.
- Will Britain be better off, compared to staying in the EU?
- Will it create a fairer society?
- Will it make Britain’s economy and society more or less open?
- Will it give governance back to the electorate?
These seem utterly reasonable questions the public and policymakers can use to guide their thinking about Brexit over the coming months and years.
With so much focus on GDP growth and the export economy it was heartening to hear the Prime Minister speak about addressing inequality in the country, a problem not unique to Britain, but one which represents a gathering socio-economic catastrophe that rarely gets the attention it deserves. Kudos there, Mrs. May!
“As Mrs May has pointed out, judging Brexit is not just about GDP numbers, it’s also about creating a ‘fairer’ Britain – closing the wealth gap and expanding wealth and opportunity beyond London and the Southeast, as well as taking back control of borders and law-making.” — The Telegraph
A Successful Brexit. Four Metrics to Guide UK Separation from the European Union. Image courtesy of The UK in a Changing Europe.
These are the right questions to be asking prior to the formal start of the Brexit process which Prime Minister Theresa May has said will commence March 2017 when the UK government triggers Article 50 of the EU constitution.
See: PM Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech
Key Brexit dates. Image courtesy of The Telegraph.
February 1, 2017: Supported by the Labour Party, House of Commons MP’s backed the government’s European Union Bill voting 498 votes to 114 (a majority of 384) to allow the Prime Minister to get Brexit negotiations underway. — Excellent BBC article here.
Next-up?
March 31, 2017: Self-imposed deadline set by the Prime Minister for informing the EU via the Article 50 clause that Britain wishes to exit the European Union.
After a long delay (which is typical in politics) things are going to get interesting, fast.
Once Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Article 50, the ball will be, as they say, in the European Union’s court.
Recommended Reading:
The UK in a Changing Europe is an impartial and independent organisation created to make the findings of the best academic research easily available to the widest possible audience. This report was written by the initiative’s director Anand Menon and senior fellows Angus Armstrong, Catherine Barnard, Iain Begg and Jonathan Portes. The report in its entirety is available for download here (PDF). [Worth the read. – Ed.]
The European Union’s Brexit Endgame
by John Brian Shannon | December 8, 2016
In the aftermath of a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the UK, British MP’s have proposed the Conservative government authour a Green Paper, a Blue Paper, or a White Paper (these are different levels of British government policy documents) to inform members of the Parliament and the public about the government’s Brexit plan.
Ranking even higher than such policy documents would be a Public Inquiry, or the highest ranking, a Royal Commission (which although quite costly) employs all the resources of Her Majesty’s government to find the best solutions to the most important problems of each era.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May has so far resisted such calls for transparency claiming that by showing their hand it could help the European Union thwart Britain’s advantage in upcoming Brexit negotiations. (And I think she was mostly right about that)
But presenting a secret Brexit plan to the EU also implies presenting a secret Brexit plan to UK citizens — and that’s undemocratic.
Yes. Britons voted for Brexit! And yes, Britons voted for a Conservative government!
But they didn’t vote for Theresa May as Prime Minister, they voted for David Cameron. Not only that, but Britons didn’t vote for a secret Brexit plan to be imposed on them — should the EU accept without changes, Theresa May’s secret version of Brexit.
Therefore, Theresa May has taken not one, but two, liberties with voters. They didn’t vote for Brexit plans that were to be kept secret, and all of it decided by a Prime Minister they didn’t vote into office. Yet, it’s probable she was pursuing such a path in order to obtain the best Brexit outcome for Britain.
For small and medium policy decisions that’s 100% acceptable, but it isn’t acceptable for top-level policy decisions resulting in major changes to the way the country operates — even though she has likely done so with the best of intentions and with the best Brexit result in mind, from the British-point-of-view.
To my mind, the government now needs to show a high level of transparency with voters. Had Theresa May been voted into office by voters and not by Conservative Party members she would’ve had more wiggle room on this.
But the simple fact is, she inherited David Cameron’s chair, voters didn’t select her. Had she won the Prime Minister’s chair from the outset, she could’ve gotten away with publishing a very generalised Green Paper at any time in 2016, and the electorate would have simply trusted her to finish the job.
That’s the problem with inheriting a sitting Prime Minister’s chair; You inherit the position, but not their political capital, nor their popularity, nor their credentials.
Which is why MP’s are now calling for a detailed policy statement. And there’s no doubt any such policy documents will become public, even if it gets marked ‘Sensitive’ or ‘Classified’. It’s just the way of things these days.
Which gives the European Union an edge that it wouldn’t have otherwise had in the Brexit negotiation process.
Thanks to the UK Supreme Court ruling, and thanks to British MP’s who now demand full transparency, PM Theresa May cannot now produce a ‘fait accompli’ Brexit document to the EU Parliament and use other, non-specified leverages to get that document quickly approved by the EU Parliament and approval by the 27 remaining EU member nations.
For Theresa May, that’s a big loss, because that’s obviously what she had planned.
But it’s all moot since the UK Supreme Court ruling, and since notable British MP’s have called for a policy paper to guide the government itself, the House of Commons, and the public, on matters Brexit.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that my argument in favour of PM Theresa May, is true.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Because powerful political and psychological forces are at work in the EU Parliament and in EU member states. They’re upset that Britain is leaving the EU. Plain and simple.
And, why not? Britain pays the largest NATO contribution, it’s a large net contributor to the European Union budget paying-in much more than it receives, and it has allowed Eastern European governments to offload millions of their unemployed citizens to Britain. Why wouldn’t they want that to continue when it’s so obviously in their own best interests?
Surely, the EU plan is to reject any and all Brexit proposals — believing it’s in their best interests to force either a so-called Hard Brexit or a No Brexit result.
It’s not that EU leaders are evil — it’s pure common sense from the European Union point-of-view.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” — former British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1784–1865) also known as Lord Palmerston
We’ll eventually see that no matter how well-intentioned any Theresa May Brexit plan is, no matter how many White Papers are produced, no matter how many warm and fuzzy photo opportunities with EU leaders, the answer is going to be a resounding ‘No’ to any Brexit plan produced by the UK government.
Which leaves only two options: Hard Brexit, or the option that the European Union governments prefer, reversal of Brexit.
‘See? It’s too hard to leave. So just stay.’
It’s so obviously the EU strategy, that the British strategy must now be all about countering the European Union strategy.
UK Supreme Court rulings, MP’s demanding policy documents and any other happenings, must now be seen as incredibly minor waypoints along the path the EU is driving the British people towards; Hard Brexit (which Europhiles hope to make as ‘scary’ as possible) or Just Stay.
We must drop the notion that the European Union is going to be ‘looking out for Britain’s best interests’ and realize that even the most well-intentioned Brexit plan will be rejected, for the express purpose of forcing a show trial in the UK court of public opinion where the only two options will be; Hard Brexit or Just Stay.
Why? Because EU politicians believe that’s in the EU’s best interests.
Reacting to any Brexit news in the meantime, is merely tilting at windmills. The real show hasn’t begun.
To BE, or not to BE, that is the Brexit Question
by John Brian Shannon | September 7, 2016
To Be, or not to Be (from Hamlet 3:1)
by William Shakespeare
To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
To die: to sleep no more, and by sleep we say end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d.
To die, to sleep. To sleep. Perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause. There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with bare bodkin?
Who would fardels bear to grunt and sweat under a weary life; But that the dread of something after death, the undiscover’d country from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard, their currents turn awry and lose the name of action.
Soft you now the fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remember’d.
Courtesy of Art of Europe
And so it is with regards to Brexit.
It would be so much easier to not Brexit and to continue along in a substandard life rather than strive to become more — the so much more that Britain is capable of should she decide to shrug-off her complacency and (declining) comforts.
What is a calling more than a science, a search more than a destination, a way of life more than a set of rules issued by others in foreign countries? It’s name? Democracy.
And that’s what the Brexiters are looking for, whether stated or unstated, whether fully reasoned in advance or not.
The same sort of people who threw off the blanket in the time of King George III in search of a more democratic government (“No taxation without representation!”) are the same sort of people who don’t want Brussels to dictate the price of bread or the ingredients in their butter. Let’s be honest, the EU has rules on everything from how many fish in a can of kippers to the price of petrol, and everything in between.
Many of these rules are good and fair rules to be sure. However, they are rules made in Brussels for the benefit of EU corporations and the EU’s 504 million citizens — and Britain’s input is minimal with only 64 million people. To put it succinctly, only the utterly naive Britons think EU membership revolves around them and that the EU was created for Britain’s benefit.
Each year, billions more pounds sterling leave Britain than the country receives in return. The early American settlers railed against “No taxation without representation!” — yet this situation is worse because there is some amount of representation, but it is representation in a foreign capital, by foreigners, and with the demands of 440 million other EU citizens taking priority over British citizens. It is a carefully crafted schadenfreude and almost every EU nation is on the receiving end of it — including Britain and Germany.
Not only that, but those billions of pounds could be better-spent by a British government that dedicates itself to the people of Britain.
The way forward for the well-being of Britain’s people is not by handing billions of pounds sterling and complete authority over their lives to eurocrats in Brussels — the way forward is by increasing trade links with all Anglosphere nations and by forging evermore bilateral trade links around the world with non-Anglo nations.
True Democracy doesn’t require the handing-over of all the money and all of the rights in exchange for whatever allowance Brussels deems to send in return.
That’s not Democracy, that’s Prostitution.
Letter to Britain 