Politics

The comments made by Donald Tusk yesterday in front of the EU Parliament, in which he made a solemn appeal to MEPs (and implicitly to his 27 Council colleagues) to consider favorably a long term extension of Art.50, are very worrying. Casting the MEPs in the chivalrous role of defending their “European” (British) compatriots interests, which are being ignored by their national representatives, may flatter the Assembly; it may not, however, pay appropriate attention to the overriding interests of the European Union. At present, and until April 12th, it is in the unilateral gift of the UK to choose between three alternatives: “No deal” – “Revocation of Art.50” – “Approving PM May’s deal”. Any other plan would require the unanimous…

After yesterday’s (13th October) vote in the House of Commons I could not resist the temptation to publish my personal thoughts on what might happen, fully aware that what I write is likely to be obsolete in the days if not hours after publication! The first remark is to confirm that despite the vote last night, “no deal” remains the legal default outcome and entails the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU on March 29th, unless one of two alternatives prevails before expiration of the deadline: 1. A vote to rescind the Art 50 in the House of Commons followed by its notification by the government to the EU. I consider this to be a highly unlikely possibility…

With less than seven weeks to go before exiting the EU without a deal, it is imperative, as the PM informed Parliament, to keep one’s nerves before spinning the roulette wheel for the final throw, in a betting game the British have engaged in without sufficient chips. Time has come to call their bluff! Like a boomerang, the slogans voiced by Theresa May such as “Brexit is Brexit” or “No deal is better than a bad deal” have come back to haunt their author, so three cheers for Charles Michel who has endorsed the second of these slogans. Indeed, contrary to Mrs. May, the Belgian PM’s stance offers a credible alternative: on the one hand supporting the agreed Withdrawal Agreement…

Within the general dispirited mood and tensions in which the European project is often ignored by a poorly informed – if not deliberately misled – public opinion, the sudden awakening of thousands of youth that it is “their” future that is being threatened by global warming, is creating a faint new hope that – if properly managed – could transform the coming European elections into a major political event. The questions relating to global warming are emblematic of preoccupations that are better dealt with by the EU (climate does not recognize Member State boundaries), only authority that can ensure that the welfare of its citizens in general prevails over partisan “national” interests. This challenge should also be capable of mobilizing…

There is a similarity between the United Kingdom’s attitude towards Brexit and the European Union’s stance in terms of creating “an ever closer Union”: their respective public opinions as well as their politicians seem to achieve rapidly a consensus on what they do not want but are equally incapable of agreeing on what they seek. On the one hand the UK does not wish a “no deal” exit from the EU but is unable to outline the terms of an acceptable agreement while, on the other, continental citizens are in their great majority favorable to the EU (see latest barometer) while their representatives are unable to agree on the measures necessary for its survival: federalism, completing EMU, common defense, immigration,…

The forceful intervention concerning the “Yellow Jackets” and the European Union by Bernard Henri Levy on January 11th during the French TV show “24 hours Pujadas”, was both welcome and refreshing. His analysis stating that only a (reformed) EU is susceptible to offer a credible answer to the challenges confronting Member States in a hostile geopolitical environment (Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Xi, etc.) underscores – by contrast – the incapacity of national political parties to formulate acceptable constructive alternative proposals. Whether confronting the challenges of immigration, the environment, defence, economic and social problems or the €, all proposals that require retaining or restoring the primacy of individual country’s “national sovereignty” (favoured by the populists), lead to an unescapable consequence: the re-establishing…

It is dispiriting spectacle to watch the cream of French intelligentsia argue for hours on TV the impact of a “Yellow Jackets” list on the outcome of the forthcoming European parliamentary elections. The entire focus is on the gains or losses such a list would inflict on established parties. The consensus is that President Macron would have most to gain and the extremes, especially on the right, would be weakened. Should the Yellow Jackets fail to run, as is likely, the far right (Le Pen and Dupont Agnan) is expected to make significant gains, severely beating the President’s supporters. However, this debate is secondary at best if not totally derisory when compared with the high stakes in play concerning the…

There is a fairly large consensus around the opinion that “Brexit” is neither good for Great-Britain nor for the EU. However, its consequences appear particularly damageable for the United-Kingdom and positively disastrous in case of a “no deal exit”. Inside the Union, while there are sincere regrets concerning the departure as well as a recognition of the significant contributions made by the UK, those who wish to pursue an “Ever closer Union” believe that Brexit might give a new impulse to European integration; the last major step forward in this process was the introduction of the single currency in 1999 which still remains uncompleted. In parallel with this standstill, the first years of the new century saw a marked increase…

The odds to reach an agreement are far better than 50/50! As the deadline to conclude the “exit agreement” – which includes an outline of the future relationship between the EU and the UK – is fast approaching, the rhetoric and posturing by all involved seems to reach new heights with every passing day. Nevertheless, reaching a compromise is clearly in the overwhelming interest of the parties, the risks of a failure being unacceptable. It is high time to dispense with grandstanding, proffering insults and ad hominem arguments as well as spreading unsubstantiated “fake news” regarding respectively the advantages and pitfalls of a “no deal” scenario. Indeed, from the point of view of the UK, failure to reach an agreement…

The EU must undertake with the BRICS with Japan an initiative to limit the exorbitant power of the Unites States derived from “Weaponizing” the Dollar! The unilateral exercise of power is a temptation for any public or private entity who can get away with it! For the United States, the possibility goes back to the end of WWII, though it has been utilized with more or less restraint by successive Presidents corresponding to their assessment of the country’s best interests. After having been sole power to master the use of nuclear power at the end of the conflict, its progressive proliferation led the United States to enter into a series of international treaties aimed at forbidding its military use and…