Archive for the ‘EU Expansion’ Category

22
Jun

The self-inflicted dangers of the EU referendum

Written on June 22, 2016 by Waya Quiviger in EU Expansion, Europe

What were they thinking? It is extraordinary to read a succession of official reports arguing, rightly, that a vote to leave the EU would impose long-term damage and a short-term shock. What sort of government would run such a risk, particularly when the economy has barely recovered from the financial crisis of less than a decade ago? The answer is one that has put the needs of short-term party management above its responsibility for the country’s welfare. David Cameron, prime minister, might soon be known as the man who left the UK in far-from-splendid isolation.

The Treasury has already argued that leaving the EU might lower real gross domestic product by between 3.4 and 9.5 per cent in the long term. This is broadly in line with estimates from other reputable forecasters. Patrick Minford of Cardiff University, a proponent of leaving, argues that the UK would enjoy a jump of 4 per cent in aggregate economic welfare after leaving the EU and adopting free trade (an unlikely choice). But this result is an outlier. It rests on implausible assumptions, not least on

The Treasury has now followed up with a report on the short-term consequences of a vote to leave. In summarising the results, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has stated that the UK would suffer a “do-it-yourself” recession if it decided to leave. One might better call it a “do-it-himself” recession. For it was the government’s decision to take this risk.

The new report’s main scenario predicts that GDP would be 3.6 per cent lower after two years than if the UK voted to remain, unemployment would be 520,000 higher and the pound would be 12 per cent lower. Under a worse scenario, GDP could be 6 per cent lower, unemployment 820,000 higher and sterling 15 per cent lower. The Institute for Fiscal Studies adds that, instead of an improvement of £8bn a year in the fiscal position, as the net contribution to the EU fell, the budget deficit might be between £20bn and £40bn higher in 2019-20 than otherwise, sharply slowing the planned fiscal consolidation.

Indeed, the Treasury argues, plausibly, that the very possibility of a vote to leave is already having an impact on the economy. But an actual vote to do so in June’s referendum would crystallise this risk and create significant and immediate effects, via three channels. The first of these would be the tendency of households and businesses to adjust at once to becoming permanently poorer. This would lead to significant cuts in consumption and investment. Read more…

MARTIN WOLF, May 26, 2016

 

4
Nov

Britain ‘At Point Of No Return’ over EU Membership

Written on November 4, 2014 by Waya Quiviger in EU Expansion, Europe

MERKEL CAMERON

Angela Merkel has given David Cameron an ultimatum over his intransigence on European Union freedom of movement, warning that Britain is fast reaching “the point of no return” when it comes to exiting the union.

Der Spiegel news magazine quoted sources within the German chancellor’s office and German foreign ministry as saying that Merkel made clear she will withdraw her support for Britain’s continued EU membership if Cameron insists on pressing for measures which would undermine the principle of the free movement of labour.

At a recent summit in Brussels, Merkel is said to have made it abundantly clear Germany would not accept any tinkering or redrawing of freedom of movement principles, bluntly telling him: “That’s it.” It should, Der Spiegel noted, “have left the British Prime Minister in no doubt”.

The Prime Minister, who is under pressure to tighten Britain’s immigration controls to counter the rise of Ukip, has already torn up one proposal to impose quotas on low-skilled EU migrants in the face of German opposition, according to The Sunday Times.

The newspaper said that Cameron was now looking at plan to stretch the EU rules “to their limits” in order to ban migrants who do not have job and to deport those who are unable to support themselves after three months.

The Prime Minister was said to want to be able to present a “German-compliant” plan to re-negotiate the terms of Britain’s membership ahead of the Conservatives’ promised in/out referendum by the end of 2017.

Downing Street would not comment on the reports, but did not deny that they had taken place.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The Prime Minister will do what is right for Britain, as he has repeatedly made clear.”

Cameron is under pressure on both sides of the channel, heighted by the imminent Rochester by-election likely to be won by Ukip defector Mark Reckless. But he also faces a haranguing from some colleagues. Arch pro-European former cabinet minister Ken Clarke who dismissed Ukip as an “extreme right-wing protest party” and said that free movement of labour was “absolutely essential” to the working of the single market.

“If you’re going to have a sensible single market, if we want to compete with the Americans and the Chinese and so on and modern world, we need the free movement of labour,” he told BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

“All our companies, multinational companies, will go spare if you start inferring with that.”

Published on 3 November  in http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/03/merkel-cameron-eu_n_6091982.html?1414999633&utm_hp_ref=uk

20
Oct

Europe’s Essential Unity

Written on October 20, 2014 by Waya Quiviger in EU Expansion, Europe, Foreign Policy, Op Ed

BRUSSELS – Over the past ten years, the European Union has endured a series of unprecedented crises, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again. But other, no less daunting challenges lie ahead, and we would do well to remember the lessons learned along the way.

One lesson is that unity is not an option; it is a condition sine qua non of the EU’s economic prosperity and political relevance. It is remarkable that since 2004, when I became President of the European Commission, the EU’s membership has nearly doubled, from 15 countries then to 28 now.

Read more…

21
May

A Finland Model for Ukraine?

Written on May 21, 2014 by Waya Quiviger in Democracy & Human Rights, EU Expansion, Europe, Op Ed

 

WASHINGTON — After months of war fever over Ukraine, perhaps the biggest surprise is that citizens there will be voting to choose a new government in elections that observers predict will be free and fair in most areas.

This electoral pathway for Ukraine seemed unlikely a few weeks ago, given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his covert campaign to destabilize the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine. There were dire warnings of a new Cold War, and even of a ground war in Ukraine. The country seemed at risk of being torn apart.

If this Finland-like status is what Ukrainians support (and recent evidence suggests their new leaders may indeed choose this course) then it should be a welcome outcome for the West, too. Ukraine’s problems are internal; it needs ideological coherence more than territorial defense. It needs the breathing space that nonalignment can provide. The Ukrainian people can’t be barred from seeking membership in NATO or the European Union, but it’s unimaginable that either body would say yes, perhaps for decades. So Putin can breathe easier on that score.

Maybe the elections will dull the self-flagellating domestic rhetoric in America that Putin’s menacing moves were somehow the fault of President Obama and his allegedly weak foreign policy. Obama has made mistakes, especially in the Middle East, but his Ukraine policy mostly has been steady and correct. He recognized that the U.S. had no military options and fashioned a strategy that, with German help, seems to have deterred Putin from further recklessness.

If the election goes forward (with Putin maintaining his current “wait and see” stance), Obama deserves credit for crisis policymaking of the sort recommended by the respected British strategist Lawrence Freedman. “The basic challenge of crisis management is to protect core interests while avoiding major war.” Freedman wrote in a March essay on the blog “War on the Rocks.” He argued, even then, that criticism of Obama’s allegedly weak stance was “overdone.”

The case for “Finlandization” emerges in a monograph prepared recently by the State Department’s Office of the Historian. It argues that “Finnish foreign policy during the Cold War successfully preserved Finland’s territorial and economic sovereignty, through adherence to a careful policy of neutrality in foreign affairs.” Ukraine’s new government may pursue a similar nonalignment, judging from the leading candidate, billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who has pro-Western ties but also served in the Moscow-leaning government of deposed president Viktor Yanukovych.

The State Department study also noted that nonalignment allowed Finland “to serve as a bridge between the Soviet bloc and the West.” Helsinki became a meeting ground for arms-control and human-rights talks that eventually transformed Eastern Europe. A similar bridging role for Ukraine would be welcome, as it would draw Russia west, away from an atavistic strategy of creating a Eurasian trade bloc to re-establish Soviet-style economic hegemony.

For all the war talk, Ukraine has really been a test of nonconventional forces and covert action rather than military intervention. Putin, the ex-KGB officer, launched a deniable “stealth” invasion of Crimea in February, using troops without insignia. He continued the pressure in eastern Ukraine by working with pro-Russian irregular militias, though their unruly behavior eventually seemed to worry even Putin. He may have threatened invasion but he never seemed eager to roll his tanks across an international border.

What seems to have slowed Putin’s allies in Ukraine is similarly unconventional. It wasn’t Ukrainian government troops that restored order in eastern cities such as Donetsk and Mariupol. The army’s performance was middling, at best. Stability returned because of the deployment in at least five eastern cities of steelworkers and miners apparently dispatched by Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, who opposed a breakup of his country.

“This has to be Ukraine’s choice,” argues Karen Donfried, the new president of the German Marshall Fund (where I’m a trustee) and former National Security Council director for Europe. If Ukrainians seek an accommodation with Moscow, it must be their desire for self-limitation, not a policy imposed by Washington or Berlin.

The stabilizing factor here will be a Ukraine that makes its own decisions.

davidignatius@washpost.com
Published on May 21, 2014 in the Washington Post.

We use both our own and third-party cookies to enhance our services and to offer you the content that most suits your preferences by analysing your browsing habits. Your continued use of the site means that you accept these cookies. You may change your settings and obtain more information here. Accept