EU: Visegrad: The clash of the euro visions - by Katya Adler

After Brexit could come Nexit, Dexit and Frexit, we thought, as a wave of anti-establishment euroscepticism washed across the continent.

But shock at the ongoing political disorder in the UK following the Brexit vote, plus a sense of uncertainty in Europe provoked by the Trump presidency, have served to solidify EU membership in most countries.

Now the battle is no longer about survival but over the direction the European Union should take. And in whose name.

The celebrated assumption in Brussels has been that Merkel and Macron, or M&M as I like to call them, would become the EU's golden couple - breathing life back into the Franco-German motor of Europe, getting the engine of EU integration purring once again, once troublesome Britain was out of the way.

But the spoke in the wheels of that EU motor-vehicle scenario comes from central Europe and the so-called Visegrad group of former communist states: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Otherwise known as the V4.

Hungary's foreign minister once told me they see themselves as the "bad boys" of Europe. Pushing back against Brussels edicts, such as the migrant quotas.

Eurosceptic they are not. V4 economies have benefited hugely from EU subsidies.

Brussels-sceptic would be a more accurate description. With a common, though varying degree of dislike for EU centralisation.

The Visegrad 4 certainly do not share the post-World War Two vision of the EU espoused by mainstream decision-makers in western Europe, in countries like Germany, France and Italy.

The governments in Hungary and Poland have made front-page news over the last few months for thumbing their nose at EU laws, lectures and mores.

Their vision for Europe is one where the nation state is strong and independent.

Agoston Mraz, CEO of the Hungarian government-sponsored Nezopont Institute, told me fighting empires is a Hungarian tradition: first the Turks 500 years ago; then the Austrian Empire; followed by the Nazis and the communists in the 20th Century. Now, he said, they were resisting attempts to build a European empire.

He believes a clash of "euro visions" between the V4 and EU-integrationists is inevitable. And that the V4 view of Europe is catching on.

The EU certainly worries that the self-declared illiberal democracy of Hungary's domestically popular Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, is inspiring others.

Ultimately, though, the EU vision division is no binary matter.

Look at Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands and you'll see there are nuanced positions between the Orban/Macron extremes.

As the UK exits the EU it leaves behind a gaping hole - not just in the EU budget - but also in terms of balance of power.

It's not clear yet who will fill the vacuum - the federalists, the pragmatists or more nationalist-minded governments.

Note EU-Digest: History tells us that a nationalist trend has always led to disaster for Europe, so whatever the Eastern European say, lets keep on a Federalist course and dear Europeans in the East : take it or leave it.

Read more: Visegrad: The clash of the euro visions - BBC News

Eastern Europe: EU dashes integration hopes of eastern countries

The EU told Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine on Friday that it "acknowledge[s] their European aspirations and European choice", but only "in [the] context" of a 2016 EU decision which said that association treaties will not lead to membership. 

 

It said it supported the "territorial integrity" of all partners, but did not refer to the right of self-determination of Armenians in Azerbaijan's breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region as it had in previous declarations.

Read more: EU dashes integration hopes of eastern countries

Netherlands: 61% of Dutch voters say no to ratifying EU-Ukraine deal "pushed down the throat of the EU by the US"

Ukraine Referendum: EU needs an independent foreign policy

The majority of Dutch people who went to the polls in the Netherlands on Wednesday April 6  to express their opinion on the proposed association agreement between the EU and Kiev have rejected it, preliminary results and exit polls have shown.

Sixty-one percent voted against the Netherlands ratifying the treaty, which would strengthen economic and political ties between the 28-nation bloc and Kiev, an exit poll conducted by the Ipsos center shows. Some 38 percent of the voters supported the move, the exit poll has shown.

If the turnout surpasses the 30 percent threshold, making the “no” vote valid, the government will reconsider ratifying the treaty, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said.

"It's clear that 'No' have won by an overwhelming margin, the question is only if turnout is sufficient," Rutte stated. "If the turnout is above 30 percent with such a large margin of victory for the 'No' camp then my sense is that ratification can't simply go ahead."

Ukraine’s foreign ministry announced that it is examining the results of the referendum, but pointed out that it was a non-binding expression of public opinion and that it will wait for the Netherlands’ final decision on ratification of the EU-Ukraine deal.

“We are counting on the decision to be in the interests of Ukraine, the Netherlands and Europe,” Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mariana Betsa stated.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian opposition said that the results of the referendum represent disappointment with the Ukrainian government.

“This is like a cold shower for the Ukrainian politicians who believe that loud shouting and wild hopping is more important than efficient work,” Aleksander Vilkul, a leader of the Opposition Bloc Party, said. “This is an assessment to those who think that no one will notice excessive corruption.”

Although Rutte promised that a valid “no” vote would not go ignored, he said that the government would take its time in deciding exactly how to respond to the public’s opinion.

A political analyst in the Netherlands noted that this referendum result was not an Euroskeptic endorsement, as proclaimed by the right-wing Dutch anti-Islamist Geert Wilders, or a pro-Russian declaration, but rather an indication that the majority of Europeans are  tired of being dragged into US political and diplomatic "escapades", be it in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere, and rather prefer to follow an independent foreign policy.

EU-Digest

Europe’s Declining Influence: Europe’s Growing Illiberalism - by Judy Dempsey

European politicians frozen in time on unity

During the heady months of 2004, Brussels was the place to be. The EU was the organization to join. Europe was brimming with optimism and confidence.

On May 1 of that year, eight countries from Eastern and Central Europe became EU members. Poland’s Mission to the EU threw a marvelous party. There was a cacophony of languages. There was dancing, singing, and a real sense of relief. Poland and other countries in the region had returned to Europe.

There was also a sense that this bigger, united EU was ready to exert its influence beyond its borders. Almost twelve years later, that Europe is hardly recognizable.

Europe has retreated into its shell. With the exception of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, both of whom understand what is happening to Europe, EU leaders are acting as if they have no obligation to defend Europe’s values and the principles of freedom and openness. More worryingly, they don’t seem to care about the EU’s influence in the world.

This is confirmed by a new report by the World Economic Forum called Europe: What to watch out for in 2016-2017. To say it makes grim reading is an understatement. “European leaders must deliver solutions, and fast, if they want to prevent support for the EU [from] imploding in coming years,” the report states.

The EU has always had its share of doomsayers. But what is particularly worrying about this report is the Eurobarometer survey it cites. Respondents were asked what were the most important issues facing the EU at the moment. The first in the list was migration, mentioned by some 58 percent of those surveyed.

The last was the EU’s influence in the world, cited by about 6 percent. What a depressing indictment of Europe’s priorities: influence doesn’t matter.

The report also reflects how the EU’s influence inside Europe is waning, and this is more troubling. If the EU’s role is weakening or if the bloc is less attractive even to its own members, how can the EU have influence beyond its borders?

The EU’s values are under threat in many member states. The Polish, Hungarian, and Slovene publics are intent on upholding the role of the traditional family only months after the Irish, once a bastion of Catholicism, voted in a referendum to legalize gay marriage. Warsaw and Budapest are meddling in the courts and the media—not that Italy’s former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had any qualms over how he used his media empire to further his own interests.

The members of the Visegrad Group, which consists of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, want nothing to do with the refugees (read Muslims) fleeing the wars in Syria and Iraq. They are not alone. Other countries across Europe are closing their borders too, mostly in response to the growing appeal of populists who are Euroskeptic, oppose immigration, and fear globalization. The November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris gave the populists a boost.

Those issues aside, the refugee crisis has exposed the inability of the EU to deal with the challenge of migration. Above all, it has shown that most European leaders do not see the connection between helping the refugees and the EU’s influence.

Refugees, migrants, and students who are offered the opportunity to live, work, and study in a democratic country give something back to that country if they remain and integrate. As the Economist argued in its January 29 issue, if migrants and students return to their homeland with new skills, they are more likely to do business with the country that welcomed them.

Other reports make similar arguments about Europe’s dwindling influence. The Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2016 includes a chapter called “Closed Europe.” In it, authors Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan argue that the rise of populism and nationalism, the erosion of the rule of law, and the risks to the Schengen system of open borders are chiseling away at the principles on which the EU was founded. “Closed Europe is first and foremost a Europe that closes itself up to the outside world, and whose countries close themselves up to one another,” the authors write.

Merkel is key to the EU’s future and influence. She has kept the eurozone countries afloat, although the single currency’s woes are far from over. She has kept the EU together in standing up to Russia despite wavering from her Social Democrat coalition partners and other EU leaders. She has tried to preserve Europe’s values of humanity and decency through her open-door policy toward the refugees.

Yet for all that, Merkel has been pilloried by several European leaders. She has been denied the solidarity that Germany had unflinchingly extended to its EU allies when asked. As a report by Citi GPS argues, the basic tenets of the European model of liberal democracy that Merkel is trying to defend are being challenged. And with it, Europe’s influence.
 
Read  more: Europe’s Declining Influence, Europe’s Growing Illiberalism - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Eastern Europe and Refugees: Fighting the wrong battle: Central Europe’s crisis is one of liberal democracy, not migration - Michal Simecka and Benjamin Tallis

The hostile response of central and eastern European heads of states to the prospect of accepting Syrian refugees is emblematic of a wider problem of democracy and liberalism in these countries.

When the European Commission unveiled its plan for binding refugee resettlement quotas in April 2015, few had expected the governments of ex-communist Member States - which have no Middle Eastern or African immigrant communities to speak of - to warmly embrace the scheme.

However, the intensity, hysteria and hypocrisy of the anti-migrant backlash shocked many, including some in the Visegrad countries themselves. Political cowardice and popular mistrust of supposedly liberal elites has allowed poisonous rhetoric directed at migrants to dominate, which risks political isolation and hinders common European action to address the crisis.
 
Encouragingly, counter-currents of resistance to the xenophobic rhetoric and callous political expediency are starting to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the Visegrad governments, meeting in Prague for an emergency summit on Friday, as it becomes increasingly clear that their approach is not only out of line with Europe's moral responsibilities, but also out of line with key European states such as Germany and France.

However, these belated, weak and ineffective responses are symptomatic of deeper social and political problems in the Visegrad countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary). The migration crisis has exposed another crisis – of liberal democracy in post-communist societies.

It is regrettable - indeed "scandalous", as French foreign minister Laurent Fabius put it – that on one of the few issues on which the Visegrad countries have made their collective voice heard, it contradicts European values and the ethos of the EU. Given the region’s history it is particularly concerning that Central Europeans are currently part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Note EU-Digest: Sad and deplorable to see how some of our own EU member states in Eastern Europe like Hungary and Poland are reacting to efforts being undertaken to come to a common solution to solve the avalanche of Middle Eastern refugees by a system of proportional distribution of these refugees around the EU. With an aging population and a lack of qualified workers this migration flow  actually be a blessing in disguise for the EU.

Read more: Fighting the wrong battle: Central Europe’s crisis is one of liberal democracy, not migration | openDemocracy

Britain dodging EU laws and UK taxpayers now face huge bill from EU jobless - by Alison Little

European Union rules require a member state where a foreign worker has paid National Insurance Contributions (NICs) to reimburse the person’s home country for certain benefits, mostly Jobseeker’s Allowance, paid when they return.

Britain insists it will hand over the cash only where the person has paid NICs here for long enough to qualify for the benefits had they stayed in the UK and been unemployed.

But a group of Eastern European countries has signalled they will work together to step up pressure on the UK to bow to a non-legally binding recommendation from an EU committee that states should reimburse each other regardless of their own rules.

The Czech Republic said it was working with Hungary, Slovakia and Poland who all claim Britain owes them millions.

Czech Minister of Labour and Social Affairs Michaela Marksova yesterday  said her country had received just £800,000 from Britain in payments for unemployed returning Czechs when it was owed an estimated £3 million.

In a radio interview she accused UK authorities of dragging their heels and dodging their EU responsibilities.

Read more: UK taxpayers face huge bill from EU jobless who go home | UK | News | Daily Express

Turkey - let's get real - a far bigger and more serious problem than Crimea - by RM

 








While the world  focuses on Crimea and the comical  "tick-tac-toe" between President's Obama and Putin,  there is another geo-political  problem, which in terms of scope and strategic importance to the West, is far more critical than Crimea.

That problem is called Turkey, on the opposite side of Crimea, with the Black Sea in between .

Here we are now facing a corrupt and paranoid PM and his government, who have gone power crazy and totally out of control, taking Turkey down the road of potentially violent public disturbances and economic meltdown.

Even though, in all fairness Erdogan's accession on to Turkey's political scene more than 10 years ago "raised many eyebrows right from the start, most Turks gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked Erdogan's hard-line reputation, and the religious undertone of his AKParty given the apparent prosperity the country was experiencing under his leadership. 

Then came a change, the "Genie got out of the bottle", and the AKparty and Erdogan became more and more dictatorial, eliminating all forces of opposition, including those in the powerful Turkish military, the press and many other organizations.

The situation got even worse after Erdogan  got into a "spat" with his Guru and Mentor, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, who lives in Pennsylvania, USA, as an exile and from there also  controls a global network of schools and organizations under the banner  "Moderate and Peaceful Islam.".   

Obviously back in Pennsylvania Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, was not very happy his "pupil"  Erdogan had stopped listening to him and rumors and evidence began circulating about the billions Erdogan and his croonies in government had swindled.

Erdogan pointed his finger at his former buddy Muhammed Fethullah Gülen claiiming that it was him who had created a  parallel state within the state that wanted to topple his government. 

Unfortunately for Erdogan despite his illegitimate reshuffling of thousands of police officers and hundreds of judges and prosecutors, he nor his government were able to track down a single piece of evidence of what he called a "parallel state".

In light of all these signs of corruption, it has also become evident to many people in Turkey that the whole parallel state argument by Erdogan  was an imagined enemy that Erdogan, like Don Quixote, used in his fight against the "windmills".

But Erdogan still has quite a few cards to play. As a result of the Turkish electoral and voting system Erdogan and his party still control the Turkish parliament.  Consequently Erdogan's AKParty is approving new laws on a daily basis to consolidate and strengthen his grip on every level of the Turkish  society. 

Mr Erdogan's other major fobia is that he is totally intolerant of criticism from whatever source it comes and has not hesitated to use his powers to have anyone he considers "a threat to the Republic" thrown into jail.

Turkey now has more journalists in prison than just about any other country in the world.

Turkey ranked 154th out of 180 countries surveyed in the World Press Freedom Index released by the Reporters Without Borders Association on Feb. 12, even behind China and  war-torn nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.  The report noted further that “the Gezi Park revolt highlighted the repressive methods used by the security forces, the increase in self-censorship and the dangers of the prime minister’s populist discourse,”

More recently, audio recordings that appear to be of Erdogan have shown how deeply he is involved in government corruption, were posted on Twitter by an anonymous account holder, just weeks before the March 30 local elections in the country.

 Even though Erdogan denied that these recordings were legitimate he apparently decided it was better to be 'safe than sorry' and just get rid of Twitter altogether.

On Thursday, March 20 Erdogan made good on his promise to wipe out Twitter in his country, and Turkish tweeters are now reporting that they are unable to access the service.

Twitter published a message on its service that same day advising users in Turkey that it was still possible to send Tweets on twitter using mobile phone text messaging. 

Erdogan has previously also called social media a "menace to society" and threatened to ban YouTube and Facebook.  Last year, at least 25 people were arrested for tweeting messages of protests against Erdogan and his government. It now also appears that Facebook is being shut down in Turkey.

Indeed, the world, and particularly the EU should wake up and "smell the roses"  about the situation in Turkey, 

Like it or not, Turkey is a powerful economic ally of the West, a member of NATO and a candidate member of the EU with a population of 81.7 million. 

In contrast Crimea and its  2.3 million people, which since 700 BC  has been changing hands many times including being part of the Cimmerians, Bulgars, Greeks, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Khazars, Kievan Rus, the Byzantine Empire, Venice, Genoa, Kipchaks, the Golden Horde, the Ottaman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Germany, Ukraine and now Russia again. 

Crimea or Turkey - Come on EU Commission and EU-Parliament - You don't need to be Einstein to figure that one out ?

As to Crimea, let's be frank - Crimeans voted fair and square they don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Maybe the simple solution would be for President Obama to shake hands with President Putin, wish Crimea well, and tell  President Putin not to start messing with Ukraine in the future,  or else. 

Let's get real - its time to focus on Turkey. .

EU-Digest