by Frank Schnittger
Mon Feb 18th, 2019 at 10:35:01 PM EST
From the very first line of the foundation Treaty of Rome, "DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe" the EU has always thought of itself as primarily about encouraging an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe as a means of ensuring peace on the continent. Ever increasing economic integration is an important goal in itself, but also primarily a means of creating inter-dependencies which make a resort to war increasingly unthinkable.
The success of this project is self-evident. There have been no major violent conflicts within the EU since its inception despite numerous tensions and diplomatic fracas. Seen in a historical context, this represents an unprecedented 60 years of peace. Seen in a geographical context, the EU is an island of peace surrounded by wars in the Ukraine, Kosovo, Syria, Palestine and Libya.
The EU has also been instrumental in resolving or ameliorating conflicts within N. Ireland, between Russia and former Baltic states of the Soviet Union, and between states on different sides of the former "Iron Curtain". It helped ease the path to German re-unification, and may one day do so for Irish re-unification as well.
Seen in an economic context, the difficulties being experienced by the UK in extricating itself from the EU illustrate the success of the economic integration project. It wasn't meant to be easy to resurrect the ghosts of militant nationalism, and the UK will soon find there is a considerable economic price to pay for doing so.
But just as the EU was primarily a political project with strong economic and social dimensions, so too is Brexit. Many Europeans seem puzzled by the UK's hell-bent determination to pursue Brexit even after all the evidence of economic damage has become more and more apparent. So if we are to understand the EU as primarily as a political project to build peace and prosperity, how are we to understand Brexit?
by Frank Schnittger
Thu Feb 14th, 2019 at 01:50:19 PM EST
I have been engaged in other projects recently and have not kept quite up to speed with the latest Brexit happenings and so perhaps you guys can help me out: Has anything of any real significance happened recently? The main points I have gleaned for a cursory perusal of news sites are that:
1. The EU has lost patience with UK
Donald Tusk wasn't having a senior moment. His wondering "what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely" wasn't a temperamental outburst. It signaled the EU had reached the end of the road in its attempts to accommodate UK demands.
2. Theresa May is running down the clock
Having been rebuffed by the House of Commons, the EU, the Irish government, the DUP and her own hard liners, Theresa May has decided the only way forward is to run down the clock and see if the imminence of a hard no deal Brexit will concentrate minds and force acceptance of her deal as the only alternative available.
3. Jeremy Corbyn has decided to get in on the game
Smarting from poor opinion poll ratings and unease among his own supporters, Corbyn has decided to engage with Theresa May so that he can say "well at least we tried" if the whole thing ends up being an almighty clusterfuck. For Theresa May talks with Labour can help run down the clock and light a fire under hard core Brexiteers and the DUP that she might, just, go down another road entirely if they don't come on board with her deal.
4. But what, precisely, is the substantive difference between Corbyn and May?
by Frank Schnittger
Thu Jan 31st, 2019 at 12:52:12 PM EST
FT: The EU cannot rescue Britain from Brexit chaos
May's government has shown it can no longer be counted as a trusted partner
I had intended to address a slightly sheepish plea to Britain's European partners. Even at this late hour, the EU27 should show forbearance with the Brexit shenanigans at Westminster. The prize of an amicable parting of the ways -- or, in the best case, a change of heart in a second referendum -- was worth it. My shaky resolve collapsed after Theresa May's latest swerve. The EU could now be forgiven for simply throwing Britain overboard.
The prime minister's embrace of her party's hardline Brexiters was breathtaking in its cynicism. Only weeks ago she was immovable about the arrangements in the EU withdrawal agreement for the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Now she promises to try to rewrite them to suit the prejudices of her party. What of the Belfast Agreement, the treaty underpinning peace on the island of Ireland? It ranks second, it seems, to appeasement of Brexiters such as Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
The mandate the prime minister claims to have secured to rewrite the Irish "backstop" is worthless and incredible. Worthless because all the other options for the Irish border have been exhaustively explored, and discarded, during the Article 50 negotiations. Incredible because the hardliners who backed her this week do not want an agreement. Supporting Mrs May now was a diversion. The real strategy is to run down the clock all the way to a no-deal Brexit.
by Frank Schnittger
Wed Jan 30th, 2019 at 12:39:46 PM EST
The Irish Times has published two letters of mine on successive days, which is a record! I would be interested in your views on it.
Free public transport - could it work for Dublin? Published 30/1/2019.
A chara, - I read with interest Lara Marlowe's article on the almost exponential growth of free urban public transport systems throughout the world ("Free public transport - could it work for Dublin?", Weekend, January 26th).
The Irish Times published a letter of mine proposing such a system for Dublin in 1980. In it I argued that such a system could massively reduce traffic congestion, reduce car imports, reduce fuel imports, and increase employment in the city.
In the meantime, we have seen a massive increase in traffic congestion, urban sprawl, commuting times, population density, and proposed and actual new public transportation systems such as the Luas and Metro causing massive disruption during the building phase and costing many billions of euro.
Tripling the size of Dublin's bus fleet would probably be required to meet the latent demand for an efficient and free public transport service, but the capital cost would be minuscule compared to the cost of the aforementioned projects.
Instead of requiring exorbitant new infrastructure, existing and underused bus lanes would be more fully utilised, and journey times improved as car traffic diminished. Valuable space currently required for car parking could be repurposed for social housing or public amenities.
Such an expansion of the public bus system would massively improve the convenience of the existing bus services by increasing the frequency, range, and scope of current routes.
Instead of wasting time, burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and contributing to global warming, commuters could work on the bus, engage with social media and, horror of horrors, actually talk to one another, thereby recreating a more convivial and socially egalitarian city.
If the buses were primarily electric, they could further reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce the fines we will soon become liable to pay for failing to reach our carbon reduction targets.
As we have little oil and no car manufacturing industries, such a system would also improve our balance of trade and employment levels.
As a nation, we think nothing of spending billions on (partially) free education, healthcare, roads and public facilities. But an efficient public transport system is every bit as vital to the functioning of a modern economy. How much time is wasted driving cars on congested roads which could otherwise be devoted to more productive work or social activities? How many lives could be saved by less tired (and sometimes intoxicated) driving?
It is an idea whose time has come. - Yours, etc,
FRANK SCHNITTGER,
Blessington,
Co. Wicklow.
by Colman
Wed Jan 30th, 2019 at 10:47:47 AM EST
I wouldn't put too much energy into predicting the outcome at this point.
by Frank Schnittger
Tue Jan 29th, 2019 at 12:58:17 AM EST
Letter to the Editor, Irish Times, published 29/1/19.
A chara, -
John Lloyd (Opinion & Analysis, January 25th) argues that Fintan O'Toole has got it all wrong when he argues that Brexit is caused, in part, by a nostalgia for an imperial past and a tendency to blame the EU for all ills that afflict the UK.
Instead, he argues that Brexit was motivated largely by a desire to be ruled by their own parliament and courts which the British people can better understand and control - in contrast to a fundamentally undemocratic, opaque and unaccountable EU.
Am I alone in tiring of being lectured on democracy by the only country in Europe without a clear and written constitution, with an entirely unelected upper house of parliament, an unelected head of state, and an electoral system which can lead to wildly disproportionate results and which renders many votes in "safe" constituencies pointless as they will have no influence on the overall result?
One can argue that the Brexit result was as much a protest against a UK political system which had successfully deflected all blame for its own failings onto the EU.
For once, every vote actually counted. - Yours, etc,
FRANK SCHNITTGER
by Frank Schnittger
Fri Jan 25th, 2019 at 01:27:28 PM EST
Faced with the possibility of Brexit being delayed, or even reversed, members of the DUP and ERG are beginning to moderate their positions and are suggesting that May's deal could be passed if only the hated Irish Backstop clause could be removed or time limited in some way.
For their part, the Irish government is coming under increasing pressure to moderate its absolute insistence that there can be no border infrastructure of any kind. Critics are pointing out that a hard customs border will be legally required from the 29th. of March if a no deal Brexit occurs.
Officially the Irish government is still insisting that this is a problem for the UK side to overcome, and that it is awaiting firm proposals from the UK side so it can respond accordingly. The problem is that no one trusts Theresa May's ability to deliver on her promises any more, so what is the point of making concessions now when there is no guarantee these will secure a deal and that the UK government won't come back again looking for more?
But the outlines of a potential deal have been visible for some time if only the political skill was there to realise it...
by Oui
Wed Jan 23rd, 2019 at 09:21:17 AM EST
The British business community has lost its patience with the political paralysis in the City of London.
Today's headlines in the media are filled with gloom and doom. To be fair, not just in the UK but also in the port cities on the continent.
In capital letters when decisions are lacking - F E A R enters.
More below the fold ...
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
by Frank Schnittger
Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 01:27:14 PM EST
The back-stop is that part of May's now half dead deal with the EU whereby all parties committed themselves formally to what they all claim to be committed to in practice: No hard policed customs border in Ireland. Initially the UK proposed to do this via yet to be invented new technology which would magically make any border controls invisible. When no practical solution on these lines emerged they proposed to do so by retaining Northern Ireland within the Customs Union and Single Market until such time as another solution to keeping the border open could be found.
This was absolutely unacceptable to the DUP as it would entail a customs border "down the Irish Sea" between the EU and UK and, in their terms, threaten the constitutional Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The DUP is absolutely opposed to any and all divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for this reason, except when it is not: On abortion rights, marriage equality, minority language rights, transparency of political donations, animal disease controls and some agricultural product standards, for example.
Theresa May's solution to this conundrum was to propose retaining all of the UK within the Customs Union until such time as an alternative solution could be found, thus giving Ireland, North and south, the best of both worlds: unhindered access to both the EU and UK markets, and calming the fears of most of UK business about barriers to trade with the EU for the foreseeable future. This has proved to be the single most unpopular feature of May's proposed deal in the UK, and is widely blamed for it's massive defeat. But it was actually a UK proposal and a massive concession by the EU - for which it has gotten zero credit.
by fjallstrom
Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 02:24:40 PM EST
In September, Sweden went to the polls, and the results were far from clear, leading to a drawn out government formation.
To recap, the left bloc got 144 seats and declared themselves winners. But so did the right bloc with 143, on account of the left bloc losing more. And of course the far right Sweden Democrats with 62 seats also declared themselves winners.
PM Löfven was voted down by the right and far right, but the cabinet has stayed in place as a care taker government.
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
by IdiotSavant
Tue Jan 15th, 2019 at 09:29:39 PM EST
This morning the UK parliament voted on Theresa may's Brexit deal - and as expected voted it down in the biggest defeat for a UK government in the democratic era. So what happens now? The problem is that no-one can tell. The UK has passed into political singularity, and no-one knows what might come out the other side.
Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger
by Frank Schnittger
Sat Jan 12th, 2019 at 12:12:10 AM EST
Over two and a half years after the referendum Theresa May has finally decided to reach across the aisle and try to build a national consensus around her Brexit deal. She has begun talking to Labour MPs who have been saying for months they might support her deal provided they receive assurances on workers rights and permanent access to a customs union. She has even spoken to a couple of leading trade unionists she has never bothered to meet in all of her political career. Downing Street had to call the Union call centre to get the General Secretary's contact details...
It is a last desperate maneuver, undertaken only because the DUP has rejected her latest attempts to get them on board. With the DUP it is always a case of "what part of NO do you not understand?" It is the end-game of her strategy, first announced in her Lancaster house "red lines" speech, to secure a parliamentary majority by appeasing her the hard core right wing Tory Brexiteers and the DUP - all the while claiming to be uniting the nation around her.
She is also beginning to lose control of the whole Brexit process with an increasingly assertive parliament demanding that she announce her Plan B within three days of losing the vote on her Brexit deal next week. Tories are incensed that Speaker John Bercow allowed amendments tying the hands of the government. But what do you expect when you don't have a written constitution and precedents are there to be set? His job is to assert parliamentary sovereignty, not protect the government.
So what are her options for a Plan B?
by Colman
Mon Jan 7th, 2019 at 03:23:31 PM EST
Since extending A50 might possibly come up once or twice in the next few weeks this link to the legal decisions on EP seat distribution may be handy:
However, in the event that the United Kingdom is still a Member State of the Union at the beginning of the 2019-2024 parliamentary term, the number of representatives in the European Parliament per Member State taking up office shall be the one provided for in Article 3 of the European Council Decision 2013/312/EU1 until the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union becomes legally effective.
1
European Council Decision 2013/312/EU of 28 June 2013 establishing the composition of the European Parliament (OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 57).
EB/NC/fh 6
Once the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union becomes legally effective, the number of representatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member State shall be the one provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article.
All representatives in the European Parliament who fill the additional seats resulting from the difference between the number of seats allocated in the first and second subparagraphs shall take up their seats in the European Parliament at the same time.
There is no legal reason a long extension can’t be done, “just” political ones.
by Frank Schnittger
Mon Jan 7th, 2019 at 02:20:34 PM EST
Yours truly and Luis de Sousa have been using the Charge of the Light Brigade as a metaphor for the UK's brainless charge for Brexit. But perhaps it is Boris Johnson himself who came up with the more appropriate metaphor when he said that the UK was going to make "a Titanic Success of Brexit". The metaphor is all the more apt as the Titanic had been built in the famous Harland and Wolff shipyard - a fact that is now commemorated in the Titanic centre in Belfast. The DUP has also been leading the charge towards a Brexit which could well jeopardize the very union between N. Ireland and Great Britain they so claim to cherish.
It is now almost two months since Theresa May agreed her deal with the EU Council and very little has changed or moved on in the meantime as the great ship of state sails inexorably on towards a hard Brexit on 29th. March. If the 117 Tory MPs who voted no-confidence in Theresa May's leadership combine with the DUP, May's deal could well go down by over 200 votes in the House of Commons vote on January 15th.
No prime minister in history would have been subjected to such an emphatic defeat on such a major issue and survived, and yet Theresa May might fight on. Brexiteer Tory MPs effectively handed May a 12 month stay of execution when they precipitated an ill-judged no confidence motion in December and the DUP have said they will continue to vote Confidence in the Government (while threatening to vote down almost all else) for fear of precipitating a general election which Jeremy Corbyn might well win.
So we have a lame duck prime minister at the helm set on a course headed for a hard Brexit and no mechanism to change course, or have we?
by Frank Schnittger
Wed Jan 2nd, 2019 at 11:07:25 AM EST
Finbarr Flood was one of my first bosses in Guinness and taught me much of what I have learned about surviving in big business. He had joined the company as a messenger boy aged 14 and also played semi-professional soccer as a goal-keeper in both Ireland and Scotland. Having risen through the ranks to become Managing Director, he left to pursue a further career as Chairman of the Irish Labour Court, Chairman of Shelbourne Football Club, and Chair of a number of city rejuvenation projects. Having left school at 14 he was extremely chuffed to receive an honorary Doctorate from the Dublin Institute of Technology and to become an adjunct Professor to Trinity College Dublin.
a retrospective story for the season that's in it...Originally published Jul 26th, 2016.
by Frank Schnittger
Wed Dec 26th, 2018 at 10:13:34 PM EST
We've come to that time of year when we reflect on the year that has just passed and look forward to what 2019 might bring. For most, I suspect, 2018 has not been a very positive year, with Trump, Brexit, Syria, Yemen, the Ukraine, the refugee crisis, terrorist attacks and natural disasters putting a damper on feelings.
The global economy has continued to grow, but most of the benefits still go to the already rich. Employment and wages growth has been anemic and the gilet jaune protests have highlighted the difficulties which people in even relatively rich countries like France are having in maintaining a reasonable standard of living.
Brexit has highlighted the effectiveness of divide and conquer political tactics in scapegoating immigrants, refugees, and the already marginalised for the problems which ordinary people are experiencing. Hungary and Poland have managed to compromise a free media and judicial independence and Greece is left to suffer enormous deprivation with little EU solidarity and support.
Great uncertainty leading to market volatility and political instability has been reducing investment, growth, consumer confidence, and political ambition. Most people seem to be expecting things to get worse before they can get better, and some doubt whether they will get better at all, with climate warming worsening and threatening to accelerate out of control.
So I would ask readers here take some time out from the end of year festivities to share their experiences of 2018 and hopes for 2019. Is it as bad as I have painted above, or am I missing some green shoots of a more healthy model of politics and economics taking hold? Will DiEM25 usher in a new era of transnational politics in 2019 or will hard right nationalist parties continue to make gains? Will governments start addressing economic, regional, and inter-generational inequality more effectively or are our children destined to be much worse off than we were?
Your thoughts, please.
by Luis de Sousa
Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:10:15 PM EST
Into the valley of death
Rode May's two hundred
Europhobe to the right of them
Opposition to the left of them
Country in front of them
Volleyed and thundered
|
|
| The Charge of the Light Brigade
by Caton Woodville |
An old story
The year is 1854, Britain is fighting the Crimean War in alliance with France and the remnants of the Ottoman empire, and against the rising Russian superpower. On the 25th of October the British are acting in the valley of Balaclava with a large number of forces. With Russian forces retreating from their redoubts in the southern side of the valley, General George Bingham, in command of the British army, orders the Light Brigade of the Cavalry to prevent the enemy from withdrawing with them the artillery pieces stationed in those redouts. What followed became known as the "Charge of the Light Brigade", a largely mindless and unexplained massacre of British troops.
frontpaged with minor edit - Bjinse
by Frank Schnittger
Sat Dec 15th, 2018 at 02:01:53 PM EST
I haven't the foggiest notion what the difference between foggy and nebulous is in the context of the confrontation between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker which occurred on camera at the European Council summit. She accused him of calling her nebulous and he responded that he had been referring to the debate in the House of Commons, not her, and that the word he had used was "nebuleux" in French which had been miss-translated as nebulous whereas he had meant foggy.
Both mean vague, ill-defined or unclear, and that is precisely the accusation leveled at Theresa May by several heads of government after her one hour presentation which is said to have alienated and annoyed many on the Council. She told them to trust her judgement, when that is precisely what they no longer trust. You don't wrap up a legally binding deal after a long and complex negotiation only to come back looking for more changes a couple of weeks later and hope to keep your credibility intact.
EU Heads of government were quite clear that any concessions they make now - without cast iron guarantees they will enable the passage of all required legislation through parliament - will simply be "banked" by UK Brexiteers before they come back looking for more.
by Frank Schnittger
Mon Dec 10th, 2018 at 12:52:12 PM EST
The European Court of Justice has found, in a clear and lucid judgement, that a sovereign state which has issued a notification (under Article 50) of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, retains the sovereign right to withdraw that notification "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" until such time as it takes full effect.
Unlike the Advocate General's earlier advisory opinion, it does so solely in accordance with European Law as established by the treaties, without relying on "custom and practice" in international law, or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which has not been ratified by the EU or France and Romania, although it notes that the VCLT "corroborates" this view.
The main arguments it uses to come to this view include the following:
by Frank Schnittger
Tue Dec 4th, 2018 at 04:59:50 PM EST
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has advised the Court that it should find that the UK can unilaterally withdraw its A.50 notification to leave the EU, subject to certain conditions. His finding is not binding on the Court, but it would be unusual for the Court to reject his finding in its final ruling, which could come in the next few weeks.
In doing so, the Advocate General has rejected the view of the EU Council and the EU Commission that any revocation of an A.50 notification should be subject to the unanimous agreement of the EU Council. He has also rejected the view of the UK government that the issue is entirely academic and hypothetical, and therefor should be considered inadmissible by the court.
Finally, and most dammingly, he has rejected my arguments to the effect that A.50 provides for no such right, and he goes on to quote the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as providing for such a right, even while noting that the EU, France and Romania are not signatories to that Treaty. Instead he argues (para. 79) that the rules of customary international law are binding upon the Member States and the European Union and may be a source of rights and obligations in EU law.
