Tag Archives: Brexit

Screen Shot 2016-07-04 at 12.42.40 Screen Shot 2016-07-04 at 12.42.52 Screen Shot 2016-07-04 at 12.43.10

‘Sup?

This morning.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster and Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness arrive at Dublin Castle for the North South Ministerial Council.

FIGHT!

Taoiseach and NI ministers meet to discuss Brexit (UTV)

Previously: Too Soon?

Please Note Your Nearest Exit

Rollingnews

A guy on Whatsapp writes:

If you go to Google translate EN>DE page and type in “a bad day for Europe” it outputs “a good day for Europe” in German. Not sure if its an AI source material scanning mistake or an easter egg from a rogue Google coder but it’s pretty odd – any other “a bad day for…” sentence gives the right translation.

Anyone?

Thanks Derek

Google Translate

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 12.42.04

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly spoke to Seán O’Rourke on RTÉ Radio One earlier today about the fallout of Brexit.

Unlike some of her colleagues, she was expecting the Leave side to win.

During the interview, she explained:

A lot of people here in Brussels were completely shocked and surprised by the result. I wasn’t that surprised. I was in the UK a few weeks ago and the atmosphere, to me, was much more Brexit-y if I could put it that way, rather than Remain. And I thought the narrative seemed to be going in a particular direction.

Those people that I spoke to, who might have been sort of on the sidelines or on the fence if you like, weren’t finding the arguments of the Remain people very convincing and I think they felt that, after years of the EU being blamed for virtually every ill that the UK was suffering that the people who are now urging them to Remain, they lacked credibility.

But also, mind you, closer to the actual day of the referendum and certainly in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox, I thought that that might change things and perhaps it changed the margin for the result but, obviously, ultimately it didn’t change things.

On the day of the referendum itself, putting my old political correspondent’s hat on, I noticed the turnout was very high and that generally means that people who are more excited or more involved, or more engaged on one particular side of the debate are more likely to vote and I judged that that would be people who wanted to leave the EU.

And also the weather was bad and, again people who aren’t that bothered to vote are likely to be swayed by that so, on that basis, I wasn’t really too surprised.

I think if you’re in Brussels for too long, I think a sense of dislocation happens and most people here, who work in the EU institutions obviously have skin in the game. And they’re not always looking completely rationally at the reasons why people vote in a particular way.

I know I’ve often said to my colleagues and I based it on our experience when the financial crash happened, and things changed so much and particularly I suppose for people who mightn’t have been expecting the outcome in terms of their incomes and so on and that would be the public servants and civil servants in Ireland and the degree to which their living standards plummeted and so on.

I said to my colleagues on a number of occasions, ‘don’t take anything for granted’, you know, ‘explore what’s happening in the UK, there is a possibility that the vote could go a particular way.

But I think because, when you come to Brussels, people get so wrapped up in the project, and some of them fall so much in love with the project that they find it incomprehensible that people, outside, the bubble might not be as in love with it either.

I think also there is a lack of awareness of the degree to which inequality still remains as a big issue, increasingly in many countries, including in the UK.

Of course the mistake is to blame the EU or what the EU does because very often it’s member state’s policies themselves, or globalisation generally that has created that.

But I think there is a lack of understanding and very often a lack of empathy for people who are on their uppers and who feel, certainly in some places in the UK, that they are competing for reduced public services with migrants – be they migrants from other EU countries or immigrants, people who are seeking asylum or refugee status in the UK.”

When I came here, people would talk about the second narrative. The first narrative sort of started in Auschwitz and ended with the creation of the EU if you like.

But that was a narrative for an older generation and I often make the point that young Irish women, like myself as I was in the 1970s, for my generation of young people but particularly young women, that the EU was a liberation for us because they brought in certain laws that made us more equal in the workplace and got rid of the ban on women, married women working in the workplace and so on and so forth.

So my experience and the experience of our generation, shall I say, was generally very positive. But that experience, if it isn’t being replicated among the young generations in eastern Europe, central Europe, even in the UK, then they’re going to become disillusioned with it.

But I thought it was interesting that one of the first meetings, in the flurry of meetings that have taken place all over Europe since last Thursday was one of the foreign ministers of the six founding countries of the EU and I think that was sort of sending out a signal perhaps, hinting at what you’re suggesting there that maybe the whole project has become a little bit strained that something has to happen, something has to give, a more modest union, a smaller union, whatever.

But that Brexit has been the key, perhaps, looking at it in the positive way, to reform that and is going to be positive and, you see, I’ve thought it so difficult now, when anybody mentions a Treaty change, a possible Treaty change, even over something trivial, everybody shivers because the idea that you would get 28 member states to agree on anything seems impossible. So you wonder how you can continue give that sort of strain on a process.

There’s always been a tussle here between the ever closer union people, the federalists and those who say, ‘look, let’s have a much narrower and less ambitious sort of, trading and humans rights and all of that, but let’s not try and strain this too far’ and that will continue.

But I think what we’re going to have over the next few months: a lot of politics has to happen on all sorts of levels before we can see what’s actually going to emerge at the end and no one can tell you definitively what that is.

You have the politics in the United Kingdom, the politics in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, we have our own skin in the game, very obviously and at the moment, Ireland is sort of like in a ‘torn between two lovers’ situation between the UK situation and membership of the European Union.

You also have the French presidential election next year, as you say, what’s happening in Germany, and all of that and then you have the general, ideological struggles or squabbles or whatever, political debate that goes on in relation to how Europe should develop.

But I had felt, personally, over the last while, since coming here, when you have the migration crisis and the financial crisis, you had Greece, you had this, you thought at some point, something had to give in order to rebuild, recast perhaps in a different way.

I made the point recently that, when people don’t understand, they feel stupid and when people feel stupid, the feel hostile towards those people who, inadvertently or otherwise, have made them feel stupid and so they resile and so they become much more isolated and I think the EU has an awful lot of work to do in relation to its transparency, its accountability, how it communicates with the 500 million citizens

Listen back to the interview in full here

Previously: Everything Must Change

Rollingnews

Last night.

Alone.

Drinking foreign beer.

Ross Atkins tweetz:

Who’s this having a beer in the European Council canteen? Mr Farage has much to celebrate.

If young Nigel says he’s happy then he’s happy.

Earlier: “They Stood Up And Said ‘We See The EU For What It Is'”

EU Summit (Irish Times Blog)

enda-kenny-nicolas-sarkozy-dimitris-christofias-2012-1-30-10-1-22

anne-marie-291x300

From top: Taoiseach Enda Kenny and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012

It is time for us now to re-examine the EU project, to question its direction and to remind it of its founding purpose and to forego the lap-dog like personas our leaders assume when they go to Europe.

Anne Marie McNally writes:

What a week it has been. It was a mass exodus. Britain exited Europe. David Cameron exited office. The Labour shadow cabinet exited in their droves and we exited the Euros followed swiftly by Iceland forcing England to say goodbye to all things European for the second time in a week…the drama.

Online and off the debate has raged following the seismic Brexit result. Those on the leave side both here and in Great Britain declared it a ‘working-class revolt’ and pointed to people who had voted leave as a direct rejection of the undemocratic nature of the EU project and the effects of the austerity the institutions have imposed on working and middle-class communities across Britain and Ireland.

Those on the Remain side argued that Britain had made the single biggest mistake in its European history; that leave voters had now opened the door to anti-immigrant rhetoric (or worse) and had essentially facilitated both racism and recession to take hold across Great Britain.

Both sides of the argument are not without merit and the realities we now find ourselves in are entirely uncharted waters with neither side being entirely sure how to sail through what are undoubtedly choppy currents.

The arguments on the Remain side cannot be underestimated. There is no way of avoiding the reality that jobs have been and will continue to be lost, the economy has and will suffer and sterling has and will continue to weaken.

Many on the leave side will say ‘great, the financial big-wigs in the City will suffer’ and that’s true (we’ve already seen the million/billionaires having share wealth decimated) but it’s worth remembering that vast amounts of inclusion projects, community development projects and youth services are funded directly via EU initiatives. These will cease.

Vulnerable communities will notice their absence in a far greater way than Michael O’Leary will notice a few million gone from his personal stash.

In addition to the pulling of direct EU funding from community initiatives, UK Government funding is also likely to reduce as a result of economic hardship – either real or imagined because make no mistake, when there is a plausible excuse to cut such initiatives they do.

We’ve seen it here – our community sector suffered disproportionate cuts at the first sign of recession back in 2008 and it hasn’t recovered since.

Those on the margins of society and those suffering in working class communities are the ones who bear the brunt of these cuts. I worry about a nose being cut off to spite a face in the Brexit result.

On the flip side there are the arguments, the non-racist or ignorant ones, for Leave.

The reality that the EU has ceased to be a democratic project and that the notion of solidarity – one of the pillars upon which the EU was established – has long since been abandoned.

People have watched as unelected technocrats have assumed dictator-like positions of power and have sat on high issuing instructions for the whipping of the ‘little people’ in their kingdoms.

Citizens of every EU country watched as the Greek crisis unfolded, and whether you agreed with the Greek’s handling of their own economy or not – you had to be a least slightly concerned by the lengths the EU institutions were prepared to go to smash democracy into the ground in that country and if the citizens had to go with it then so be it, it seemed.

Likewise with the current refugee crisis – only the Trump supporters among us will look at images of families being water cannoned or lined up behind barbed fences or fished from the seas without feeling utterly aghast at the lack of human solidarity on display from the EU institutions who should be leading by example.

There is a massive disconnect between citizens and the EU and never has that been more clearly stated than in the Leave result.

It is time for us now to re-examine the EU project, to question its direction and to remind it of its founding purpose, to forgo the lap-dog like personas our leaders assume when they go to Europe and to begin challenging the undemocratic processes that have created a Game of Thrones style hierarchy of countries – us wildlings are getting angry and the self-appointed leaders will pay the price of that anger.

But I fear we may suffer huge hardship to our ranks before those on high hear the message.

Anne Marie McNally is a founding member of the Social Democrats. Follow Anne Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally

Screen Shot 2016-06-28 at 10.30.14Screen Shot 2016-06-28 at 10.36.27

 TV3’s Tonight with Vincent Browne last night; Independent TD Catherine Connolly

Last night, Tonight with Vincent Browne’s panel discussed the fallout of Brexit.

The panel included Sinn Féin vice president and Dublin Central TD, Mary Lou McDonald; retired Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin, Anthony Coughlan, Fine Gael TD for Dublin South East, Eoghan Murphy; and Independent TD for Galway West and barrister, Catherine Connolly.

During the debate, this is what Ms Connolly said:

I thought I’d reached an age where I wasn’t shocked. But to see Peter Sutherland saying that, ‘we must find a way to rerun this referendum’ or to see Tony Blair come out saying, ‘it has to be rerun’ actually has shocked me. I thought I was beyond shocked.

That’s number one.

Number two, like Anthony [Coughlan]. I didn’t think this Brexit was going to win, certainly after the murder of Jo Cox – I didn’t think. So I woke up to the result on Friday morning.”

I cannot believe what the establishment have done prior to Brexit, during Brexit and after Brexit.

I’m absolutely full of admiration for the English people who have stood up to a terrible bullying campaign. I would have no truck with anti-racism [sic], nor the famous poster with refugees, I abhor it and I appall it.

But to judge the 17 million people who voted for Brexit in that manner does the person who says that no service and does the people no service.”

They stood up and said ‘We see the EU for what it is’ or, at least, that’s what I’m taking out of it. Is it the start of a new dawn? I do not think so.

But I think it’s the first step in exposing the EU.

I thought it was exposed when we were forced to rerun the Nice Treaty. I thought it was exposed when we were forced to rerun the Lisbon Treaty. I thought it was exposed during the financial crisis but, unfortunately, the establishment, the politicians that were in power, plus the media, by and large, helped to stop that exposure.”

“I think it’s exposed again now and I think it’s open for us to grab that opportunity and not let the Right have the narrative or tell the story. It’s up to us to grasp it.

How could you possibly say that the EU is good, as it stands when we have a country where we have to get permission to build homes for our people – that came out recently the committee, that we have to get permission to fiddle with the fiscal treaty to get money, how can we possibly say that this EU is a social EU that allows 10,000 minors, unaccompanied minors go missing in Europe and we haven’t had one single urgent debate at EU level in relation to that.

On top of that, we have the Lisbon Treaty and I’m all for a social Europe, I’m all for Europe. However, the Lisbon Treaty, which I canvassed against and I canvassed against it after reading it in detail.

I would hope that there was scope in that Treaty to bring out social Europe but I’m afraid the emphasis is on the militarisation of Europe, page after page, and we made this point at the time. It’s in relation to the neoliberal agenda page after page, in relation to freeing up the markets.

There are good, there are good articles in it like the one I quoted in the Dáil that all democratic decisions should be made as near as possible to the citizen. That’s the dream. The reality is we have taken power repeatedly from local politicians, just as one example, so I would love if someone took this [the Lisbon Treaty] away, that was able to study it better than me and show us the way forward to bring out the social Europe.”

“But I think it’s dominated by clauses that have a neoliberal agenda and dominated by the militarisation of Europe.

Watch in full here (go to 27.05)

Earlier: A Choice Between Two Sides Of The Same Dismal Coin

e03e073eb8bc4fdab68170ea5a9da401_18

They called it wrong again.

‘sheet poll number cruncher Shane Heneghan writes

Firstly, in the interests of full disclosure let me just say that I was spectacularly wrong about this. I predicted a remain vote of about 52%. The voters gave me the exact opposite result.

When the dust settles, the fact that this was the second major failure in a row of the British polling industry, a country where the polls are traditionally remarkably reliable, should be dealt with but at the moment that is way down our list of considerations.

Let’s just take a step back for a minute and look at what happened.

This situation we are in now is unprecedented and no one can seriously tell you what will happen next. Anyone who says they can is a liar and probably has a very specific agenda.

But for the sake of argument ‘ll go through some of the hypothetical models of Britain’s future that have been going through my head in the past while:

The Norwegian-Icelandic Model
This involves joining the European Economic Area and would leave the UK in a close economic relationship with the EU while giving them an emergency break on freedom of movement and removing them from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The UK would also lose it’s right to appoint a commissioner, elect MEPs and send ministers to the Council of the European Union and still have to pay handsomely into the EU budget while receiving little or no benefit.

The Swiss Model
Much the same as the above only in this case the relationship would be governed by a series of bi-lateral treaties. I think this is the most likely outcome as it gives the UK much more flexibility.

(It is important to note that the above two options involve membership of the Schengen passport free zone which I am assuming Britain will continue to avoid like the plague.)

The Singapore model
In short, this involves the UK being treated as if it were a third country completely detached from Europe. It implies that tariffs and customs inspections would again applied to goods traded between the rest of Europe and the UK. This is by far the most radical option and in many ways the least likely given the close nature of the vote.

There are a few other things to keep in mind in the next few days.

1)
Corbyn has got to go
A man who leads his party in a referendum and fails to convince great swathes of his electoral base of his position will probably have to do the honourable thing sooner or later. A leadership election will almost certainly be triggered by the Parliamentary Labour party in the next few days. The shadow cabinet is already in disarray and the departure of Hilary Benn does not help.

2) This vote is not binding.
The British Parliament is literally the beginning and the end of UK democracy. Referendums have no legal status and if the House of Commons votes to ignore this referendum in the morning then it’s dead in the water. Of course, even if this is entirely legally plausible, it is more or less politically impossible and would probably lead to UKIP forming an armed militia within about six months.

A slightly more likely prospect would be if a new moderate Labour party leader won an election before the exit negotiations concluded on a platform of maintaining full membership. That may sound unlikely but there is a solid 48% voters that feel hard done by and a sliver of the winning side with buyers remorse who may back them and when you factor in that the Conservative party is almost certainly going to lurch towards the right after Cameron leaves them it just might make this scenario a runner.

3) A northern Irish border poll really is a non starter.
We have already seen how the Democratic Unionist Party have moved heaven and earth to stop gay marriage being introduced to Northern Ireland- imagine the effort they would mount to stop a vote on Irish unity. Sinn Féin can hardly be blamed for raising the idea- what else are they for? But the relative silence of the SDLP is also telling. This issue simply is not on the table at the moment despite the North’s difference of opinion with mainland Britain. Things may change if Scotland votes for independence.

4) Britain may drift ideologically into the Atlantic
Future right wing governments in Britain may not be bound by EU social legislation and may slash “red tape” such as maternity leave, paid holidays, anti discrimination rules and other such nonsense dreamed up by water cooler dictators in Brussels. In terms of foreign policy in general they will be even more dependant on the so called “special relationship” with the Americans- how reciprocal that relationship is anyone’s guess.

Finally, I don’t like historical hypotheticals but I can’t help but speculate that John Major should have held a referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1991.

Presumably, he could have won and used it to silence “the bastards” in his party while nipping the rising tide of Euroscepticism in the bud. This would have probably solidified his premiership more so than his eventual “Back me or sack me” leadership contest.

He didn’t and UKIP was founded in 1994.

Shane Heneghan is a Brussels-based election and poll watcher. Follow Shane on Twitter