Brexit: Britons Will Be Poorer if They Leave E.U., Government Asserts - by Stephen Castle

Great Britain or Poor Britain?

The British government outlined the central argument on Monday it hopes will persuade voters to stay in the European Union, publishing a detailed economic analysis finding that Britons will be poorer if they quit.

The release of the publication by the Treasury, complete with complex algebraic calculations, is an important moment before a referendum, to take place June 23, on whether Britain should end more than four decades of integration and quit the 28-nation bloc.

Those who oppose a British withdrawal from the European Union, known as “Brexit,” say that it would inevitably lead to economic uncertainty and deter investment, and that it could complicate ties with the bloc, the country’s biggest trade partner.

On Monday, the government put a number on that claim, asserting that, under one midrange situation, annual economic output would be 4,300 pounds, around $6,100, lower per household if Britain left than if it stayed in the bloc.

.In any event, the chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said at a speech in Bristol, England, that the country “would be permanently poorer if it left the European Union” because “we’d trade less, do less business and receive less investment.”

Mr. Osborne, who with Prime Minister David Cameron is campaigning for Britons to vote to remain, added: “The price would be paid by British families. Wages would be lower, and prices would be higher.”

Those advocating an exit, including dissenters in the governing Conservative Party, quickly dismissed the analysis. Andrea Leadsom, a government minister who used to work in the Treasury, called it “extraordinarily biased.”

The release of the document highlights the quickening tempo of the referendum campaign, which officially began last week.

And it precedes a visit to Britain this week by President Obama, who is expected, if asked, to endorse continued British membership in the bloc but to note that it is a decision for British voters.

Note EU-Digest: the other disaster that looms for Britain in case they leave the EU, is that Scotland has indicated they want to remain in the EU and will secede from the United Kingdam if they leave the EU.

Read more: Britons Will Be Poorer if They Leave E.U., Government Asserts - The New York Times

EU - The Naysayers Are Wrong About Europe (Again) · Kevin O' Brien

Unity in diversity

Public displays of optimism in Europe are often discounted like faux pas or symptoms of a brain parasite. The continent’s history is long and bloody, and although it has enjoyed 70 years of relative tranquility, it’s best to keep your exuberance in check.
 
So perhaps it is fitting that an American who’s lived for more than two decades in Germany is arguing that Europe won’t just survive but will thrive despite its perfect storm of financial and currency troubles, demographic woes, right-wing resurgence and refugee chaos.

I know what you’re thinking. I’m going to dish out that old upbeat, can-do mumbo jumbo you’ve heard before. Even many Americans, stuck in their own economic funk and captives of a gridlocked, unresponsive political system, don’t believe it anymore, you might argue.

That may be true. But I’m not here to sing “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Sure, it would be easy to take the opposite tack, don the continent’s traditional black street garb and fall into a pessimistic, bohemian funk. There are many reasons to be worried.

Right-wing nationalists may take control of France.  Britain, always ambivalent toward the European Union, may leave and go rogue.

The dark side of the force is on the march on the continent, awakened by refugees. Poland and Hungary are rediscovering their inner Soviet child, talking trash again to the West.

The euro has been patched like an old tire. The financial mechanics on the continent say the roadside repair will hold, but not everyone believes them. On the eastern edge of Europe in Ukraine, Russia is gnawing on the principles of European liberal democracy, again.

Most troubling, the refugee crisis is exposing the design flaws of the European Union, a 28-nation bloc that drapes itself in the terminology of American federal control and member “states,’’ but in reality is often an opt-in, self-service club without active members.

So here, in the face of all that bad karma, is my argument for why Europe will prevail.

A big reason, perhaps the biggest, is that Germany won’t let it fail. It’s one of the big reasons why bank accounts here, 16 years on, are still denominated in euros. World-famous economists have predicted the currency’s demise since its birth. Each time, they have erred.

If Europe fails, Germany, the world’s third-largest exporter, would seize up. Given its history, Germany can’t win by going it alone. It needs open borders, foreign consumers and economic partners more than its European neighbors. It needs the European Union. Deep down, Germans and especially German businesses, know this. 

The public flogging of Angela Merkel over the refugee crisis will eventually ease as footpaths to Germany are closed. Wounded politically, Ms. Merkel will finish her term, and if she wants, win again in 2017.

If not, there are able candidates to replace her, all committed Europeans: Wolfgang Schäuble, confined to a wheelchair since 1990 after being shot by a deranged man at a campaign rally; Ursula von der Leyen, the defense minister, a physician and mother of seven with a near-Wagnerian biography, and a moderate, measured policy wonk named Friedrich Merz.

But Germany alone won’t keep Europe alive. Those uncooperative, bickering E.U. member neighbors will stare into the abyss of the refugee crisis, weigh up the trade lost by resurrecting internal borders, and bite the bullet to repair some of the E.U.’s structural flaws. 

Turkey may even help them, expediting its long-awaited entry into the bloc and European respectability. The first signs of progress may be joint control of the E.U.’s outer perimeter.

Emboldened by their ability to actually do something together, E.U. countries may move on to tackle other thorny issues, such as better coordinating the anti-terror police effort, developing a more coherent immigration strategy, and even, God forbid, taking in refugees.

Sure, you say, that’s just optimistic palaver – the equivalent of baloney in Germany – the view of someone unfamiliar with military setback and total destruction. That is true.

But nearly 20 years ago, I saw how Europe can work.

\It was in 1998 before the birth of the euro currency, when I was a journalist babysitting the high-stakes, closed-door meeting in Brussels where the first batch of euro countries were haggling over setting exchange rates for their old currencies.

National pride and national fortunes were on the line.

As big meetings often do in Europe, this one ran late, and rumors flew. Midnight passed, and by 3 a.m., the doubters seemed to be winning the day. But close to dawn, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl emerged to face the press, a little red-eyed and weary, but ready to prove the pessimists wrong once again.

Read more: The Naysayers Are Wrong About Europe (Again) · Handelsblatt Global Edition

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has his act together: "Unity is what is needed in Europe, not isolatio and nationalism"

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

Speaking at the 14th Norbert Schmelzer lecture in the Hague, Netherlands on March the 3rd 2016, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker noted.

"Dear Ms Schmelzer, dear Dries, dear Ben and others, dear Sybrand, dear Ruth, senators and members of the House of Representatives and of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen,

I am glad to be here with you this afternoon. This is what one is always supposed to say on these occasions, but most people do not mean it. But this afternoon it is true because I really am happy to be here to deliver this Schmelzer lecture. I am especially happy because Ms Schmelzer has done us the honour of being here. This is the second time that I have been invited to give this lecture. If I am not mistaken, I am the only person to deliver it twice. Those who have done it only once must now be hoping that they too will get an opportunity to deliver it a second time. On the last occasion I was here, in 2007, Norbert Schmelzer was still with us. He died one year later. Norbert for me was a role model —someone you could look up to, someone who offered guidance, someone who always knew how to give European integration a deeper meaning in that he saw the European Union and its creation — the integration of a continent – in direct relation to European, and also Christian, values. So that is why I am glad to be here today.

When I was here in 2007, the world was very different to how it is now. We were full of optimism. It did not take much courage to support Europe, even though, after saying ‘No’ in 2005, many Dutch people found it hard to fully back Europe and the European Union. We are living in different times now. When I became President of the European Commission, it was already clear to me that we were living in a time of multiple crises. But I could not have imagined that it would become so serious, even though I raised the issue of refugee flows and migration in my address to the European Parliament at my hearing.

2007 was the year before the outbreak of the economic and financial crisis. Budgets were being brought under control, debt levels were coming down, unemployment was high though it had not reached current levels. That crisis, the financial and economic crisis, kept us on edge for years, particularly me, because I was unlucky enough to be President of the Eurogroup at the time.

We have not yet put that crisis behind us. But we have not been beaten by it because the countries of Europe, the Member States of the eurozone, found the strength to come together.

You will remember the issue of Greece. During the first half of last year we again came under extreme pressure to either prevent a Greek exit from the euro zone or speed it up. Some people were for, others against. I never wanted a Greek exit from the euro zone because slamming doors shut is not the way forward for Europe. And now we are plunged into other crises. The financial crisis did some good in that we were able to do two things: one, to remember the values — you spoke of Gaudium et Spes – that are the truly fundamental values of the European social market economy. One of the factors that brought about the crisis was because those primarily responsible disregarded the cardinal virtues of the social market economy. We know that now. Second, the crisis made us move forward with Economic and Monetary Union – something we had to do – so that today banks and the banking sector and the real economy are better prepared to withstand external shocks than they were in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Banking Union is making progress, though not as much as I would like. Banking supervision works. Everything we have achieved over the years is working well, although more must and will be done to complete Economic and Monetary Union.

It became clear to us in the aftermath of the crisis – and as I just said, the crisis is not yet fully over – that we needed to do more to address Europe's real issues. There is a virtuous triangle in European politics – as I explained to the European Parliament – consisting in the necessary consolidation of public finances. No one should think that public finances can be left to their own devices. Governments need to continue bringing down their deficits. Europe's deficit and debt levels are still too high.

The virtuous triangle is the consolidation of public finances, growth, and jobs and investment. Investment was the issue I pushed at the beginning of this Commission's term of office; if we compare the investment levels of recent years with those of 2007, we see that investment, whether public or private, is still 15 % down compared to 2007. And this applies to every country. Even Europe's biggest economy, Germany, has a level of investment that is 52 % lower than in 1991. There is therefore an investment gap in Europe that we are trying to address with the Investment Plan, which could mobilise €315 billion in public investment. €61 billion have already been mobilised under the Investment Plan in just three months.

It is not enough for Europe to talk about budgetary policy, economic policy, fiscal policy and so on. One must also show people that the European Union is also responsible, together with the Member States, for growth and jobs. Many of our fellow citizens hear only negative news about Europe: cuts, cuts and more cuts - and it was important when the Commission took office to talk about growth and jobs as well. Because Europe's biggest problem remains weak, very weak economic growth and scandalously high unemployment. In the years to come, we will of course also be judged on how we have dealt with the refugee crisis. But we will also have to answer questions as to why we have not been able to get unemployment down. And so this is a major, ongoing issue, alongside everything else we have to do.

The Commission receives an unending stream of criticism from many countries, which is understandable: they need the Commission to be a scapegoat when they are unable to do what they promised their electorate. This I bear patiently but ever less meekly. This Commission has achieved a paradigm shift, something we made clear in the election campaign, including here in the Netherlands, namely that European policies, and therefore the European Commission, deal with the really important issues facing Europe: to be big on big things and small and modest on smaller things

That is what we are doing. When I say this in elections and to the European Parliament, I get a lot of applause. But when it comes to the nitty-gritty, I get a rather different reaction. Because everyone sitting in the European Parliament, every national minister, everyone involved in politics has a very precise idea of what Europe ought to be doing. And if you ask what Europe ought not to do, again everyone has their own point of view. If it is then carried out, however, what an outcry there is. Led by Frans Timmermans, the first Vice-President of the Commission, we have emblazoned ‘better regulation’ on our banner because we think that Europe cannot go on dealing with everyone and everything; it gets on people's nerves. We prescribe, we demand, we sanction, things that no one is interested in.

We have taken yet another decision – one I knew nothing about because the decision was taken by the Member States but the Commission will be blamed anyway – this time to lay down how fast Christmas candles should burn. With a perfect sense of timing, we published it in the Official Journal of the European Union in time for the third Sunday of Advent. I was very surprised and wondered 'Who was responsible for that?'. It is said it was a Commission decision. But in fact it was the 28 Member States, acting at the behest of the candle industry. Only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands abstained; the UK and the Netherlands are often in the same boat, which is sometimes a good thing, though not always.

Consequently, we painstakingly examined all the draft legislation before the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and withdrew over 80 drafts so that now only around 400 still have to be dealt with. We have announced 23 new initiatives. This is significant in that previous Commissions launched an average of 130 initiatives a year. And not all initiatives ended where they were supposed to. It is important to show that 'being big on the big things and small on the smaller things' is not just a slogan but what we genuinely do it. 'Better regulation' is of course also a very popular subject in the Netherlands, and we take it seriously in Europe too. I had and still have the impression that the more we interfere in people's everyday lives, the greater the already very considerable distance becomes between European citizens and European policies, and thus also the European Commission. Big ideas require big plans.

I am not talking about the Juncker Plan, though it’s a great thing (and it’s not called the Juncker plan just because I named it so but because many people thought that nothing would become of it and then it would be good if it bore the name of someone who could be blamed, so that is why the Investment Plan is called the Juncker Plan); I am talking about other things. We are taking European Energy Union very seriously. Energy is a continental matter, which makes such heavy demands on solidarity as do other matters. Energy union will come about. The digital internal market is being vigorously promoted, because, in digital terms, Europe lags behind other parts of the world and we have to reduce this digital gap. Banking Union and Capital Markets Union is another matter. Capital markets union is of key importance and is also being tackled in a very focused fashion. We have submitted all these plans and I am very glad that the European Parliament has endorsed all the projects, just as I am overall very pleased that the Commission and the European Parliament have found a new way of engaging with one another. It has always surprised me how it is that the Commission and Parliament always manage to argue in public over every little thing, even though they are the two Community institutions that should be working hand-in-hand to fashion the future of Europe.

I am the first Commission President to have been elected by the European Parliament, after we came up with the idea of choosing a leading candidate for the party lists. I have to believe that I was put into office by the people of Europe. I know so. Only the people themselves don’t know this; so we need to ensure that this method of selecting the Commission President – top candidate in a continent-wide election, Parliament approval – that this method does not disappear again. Because the European Council, shocked by the result of the first election, decided in June 2014 that for 2019 the way in which the European Commission President is appointed had to be reconsidered. And when 28 governments put their thinking caps on, the virtue of the outcome is not a God-given certainty and therefore every democrat needs to make sure that things remain as they are. There are quite a few former ministers here. And though it used not to be the case, sound common sense now follows what governments are doing, except that governments are far quicker. Thus sound common sense (which is not evenly spread across Europe anyway), does not fully succeed in getting through to the centres of government.

I am therefore very glad about the effective cooperation which the Parliament and the Commission have managed to achieve in the first twelve months of the new Commission, and I am very much of the view that the European Parliament wrongly comes in for criticism (often in the Netherlands too). People do not really understand the role of the European Parliament: it is a European legislator comparable with national parliaments and deserves the same degree of respect as national parliaments.

I said, in a moment of autobiographical weakness, that the new Commission (people only refer to the new Commission although it is already old and already has its first wrinkles) would be a political Commission because I had the impression, and still do, that the European project is increasingly seen as a problem rather than a solution. And that is precisely because we very often approach the continent's problems in a bureaucratic and technocratic manner. I have tried to change this by reinventing the Vice-Presidents of the European Commission and by giving them specific remits: for example, Frans Timmermans in the field of 'better regulation'.

These Vice-Presidents all come from small countries just as the Commission President comes from a small country - a Grand Duchy but a small country nonetheless. This is important because Commissioners and Vice-Presidents from smaller countries have different views on what needs to be done in Europe from the 'know-it-all's who arrive in Brussels from larger countries. And this really works very well.

I took care to ensure that fully mature and experienced professional politicians became Commissioners (not the way it once used to be, when the people sent to Brussels were those for whom no place could be found at home), but former Prime Ministers, four in all, and former Foreign and Finance Ministers so that in the Commission too, there is an overall understanding for the state of affairs and constraints facing the Member States. Many of those here today have, for their sins, attended Council meetings as national ministers. Now they are Commissioners, they understand better what they can propose and what they had better not propose because some governments would promptly object. To this extent, we are a political Commission in terms of our composition but also in the way we conduct political business in the Commission.

I said earlier that the Commission often comes in for a lot of criticism – we all used to be keen critics, though I am not quite so keen now; but that’s the way things are. What is not acceptable, though, is constantly seeking to take the Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, down a peg or two. Brussels does this, Brussels does that – Brussels is always doing something. And Brussels is always to blame for the dreadful state of the world. Brussels is to blame for a lot of things. But Brussels is not just 28 Commissioners. Brussels is also 28 governments. And it is quite impossible to dictate Europe’s direction against the will of the national governments and Member States. So when people say Brussels, they in fact mean themselves. The finger pointed at Brussels actually points to those who are always going on about Brussels, Brussels, Brussels. Yes, Brussels gets a lot of things wrong. But Brussels also does a lot of things right that governments would get wrong if Brussels weren’t there. So it does not help at all when people hurl criticisms of all sorts at the Commission, as the Italian Prime Minister has been doing these last few months; as the Polish government is doing; as the Finnish Foreign Minister did, when he said the Commission should not busy itself with the observance of fundamental rights in Poland, that was not Europe’s business but purely a matter for the Poles themselves – although the Treaty clearly calls on the Commission to watch over this kind of thing.

We now face a crisis – the refugee crisis – that we never thought would beset us. On taking office, the Commission devoted considerable space to the issue of migration, because we already sensed – sensed rather than knew – that something was coming. Anyone who has kept a careful eye on the world situation, anyone with a real concern for Africa rather than just talking about Africa, anyone who has observed the veritable exodus under way there over the years – there are 60 million refugees in Africa, 60 million of them – must have known something was coming. That it would happen on such a scale, in such concentration – that we never imagined. But that something was coming, quite literally – that we did know. As early as May last year, the Commission therefore put forward proposals – European proposals: namely that the refugees should be shared out – relocated – across all the Member States of the Union. The Council of Ministers approved the scheme last autumn. And the Member States – though not all of them – are refusing to implement their own decisions. It is the first time this kind of thing has happened in the European Union, for the Council to adopt legislation and then decide a few days later not to apply it. Here, we, the Commission will not back down from calling on the Member States to do what they have themselves decided. I know that it will not be easy. Because what is needed is not just for the Member States to be prepared to take in refugees – which they are increasingly willing to do, though not yet to the extent required. The refugees themselves must also be prepared to accept the invitation. What bothers me in particular – and we see it every day – is when refugees in Greece and Italy, especially Greece, simply choose where they want to go themselves. The refugees in Greece all say: Germany, Germany, Germany. That cannot go on. As a result, some countries have to bear a very heavy burden: Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands too – last year the Netherlands took in 57,000 refugees. That is twice as many as the year before. And this year the number will not be any lower unless we frame our policy to prevent it from happening. So we will have to focus hard on this issue all the time, making it clear to refugees – above all the genuine ones, not the economic migrants but the genuine asylum seekers who make their way to Europe to escape from war and violence – that it is not up to them to decide where to go, that it is up to the governments to decide where to assign them a home. Luxembourg was the first country to start implementing the decision. The Luxembourg government publicly announced in Greece that 30 refugees could come to Luxembourg. But no one wanted to go. It was like searching for a needle in a haystack to find 30 who were prepared to board a plane to Luxembourg – as if Luxembourg were the poorhouse of Europe. It is a very real problem and the message needs to be brought home again and again. It makes me weep to see the images that assail us. But it also has to be realised that the broad picture is not just black and white – yes, governments must do more, but refugees must also be cooperative.

We urgently need to strengthen the protection of our external borders, as is currently being done. On 15 December, the Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal for protecting the EU's external borders and coastlines, which governments approved in principle, although they are now having trouble implementing the decision. Council Working Groups, some 20 in total, are being held in which national representatives are saying precisely the opposite of what was backed by their heads of government at the European Council, which is holding up any real progress. However, if we fail to better protect our external borders, especially the border between Greece and Turkey, we will never manage to overcome the crisis. This is why, in Turkey and at its border with Greece, we have to bring the flow of refugees heading from Turkey to Greece, and then onwards to northern Europe under contIn the waters between Greece and Turkey, we now have NATO ships, although the exact demarcation is a subject of heated debate between the two NATO countries. NATO is helping, a fact which is proving difficult given Turkey’s reluctance to allow these ships into its waters. Nevertheless, we are managing to resolve the issue. Yesterday, Greece also began sending back refugees to Turkey – a fact which many are unaware of. Just yesterday, 308 refugees were returned. Although only a small number, this is the first time the readmission agreement between Greece and Turkey has actually been implemented.

With Turkey, we have agreed a Joint Action Plan, at a cost of €3 billion to Europeans. This is not €3 billion which will be handed over to Turkey, but €3 billion which will fund projects to help Syrian refugees in Turkey. We will be building schools and hospitals. There are hundreds of thousands of Syrian children currently living in Turkey who are not going to school despite being of school age. If we fail to manage the issue of helping children, in particular orphaned children, a lost generation will emerge. We cannot allow that. We must remain active on this front, as we currently are. Next week will see projects worth a total of €300 million getting under way, and over the coming years we will see more of the same if the need is still there.

Yesterday, the Commission agreed a €700 million emergency aid programme for Greece and other countries. However, the focus will be predominantly on Greece, given the large-scale humanitarian crisis beginning to unfold there – indeed, for many, it already exists. That is because Europe is not acting like it should. It is because there is not enough Union in the European Union and not enough Europe in the European Union, with Member States thinking that the refugee crisis can be solved by working alone, as nations. But only a European response can solve a Europe-wide problem that has been imported to Europe from other parts of the globe. Isolated national action, although sometimes understandable, in not welcome because when one country secures its own borders, this (a) does not solve the refugee problem and (b) will destroy the internal market completely.

People need to know that there are 1.7 million cross-border commuters in Europe. People need to know that 52.4 million cross-border freight transport operations occur each year in Europe. People need to know that it costs €53 when a lorry has to wait at a border for 30 minutes. Knowing how many lorries in the Netherlands travel between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands every day, you can soon work out how much this costs. The internal market will not survive the refugee crisis if we do not manage to secure our external borders jointly and if we do not move away from this senseless policy of countries doing whatever they want, without any thought for the impact of their actions on the neighbouring Member States.

It is regrettable that border access has been restricted by Austria, as this basically closes the border between two Schengen countries. Doing so has nothing to do with protecting our external borders. When, much to my disliking, Hungary built a fence along its border with Serbia and Croatia, this could be called external border protection given that those countries are not part of Schengen. It is not the ideal form of protection, but so be it. However, by closing the border once more between two Schengen countries, we are slowly but surely destroying the European internal market and everything associated with it. Consequently, we must resist this kind of thing vigorously.

We could talk for hours about the refugee crisis. That is indeed what our heads of government have been doing for the last six months and will be doing again next Monday, when talks will finally be held with Turkey. I would like to thank you, Léon, for saying that without Turkey, there is no solution to the crisis. Turkey is certainly a difficult partner. I could also talk for hours about human rights, press freedom and similar issues in Turkey. However, on the matter of stemming the flow of refugees, Turkey is the European Union’s most important partner – although in principle I am not in favour of pushing back the flow since it is my view, based on the Christian values adhered to in the European Union, that we are duty-bound to offer a new home to those fleeing war and violence.

What has become of us? The richest continent in the world, with 500 million inhabitants, and yet to say from the outset that we would be unable to accept one or two million refugees. Talking to the King of Jordan and the Lebanese Prime Minister, as I do on a regular basis, leaves me feeling ashamed. Jordan, a country with 8-9 million inhabitants, has taken over 630 000 refugees from Syria, a figure which excludes the 500 000 Palestinian refugees. In Lebanon, 25 % of the population are refugees, newly arrived from Syria. And we, as Europeans, say we can’t manage. What must the others think of us? This is ‘reputation damage’ we are inflicting on ourselves: people around the world who have always looked at Europe with great hope are suddenly discovering that we are mired in our own egoism, unable to agree with one another in order to tackle the refugee crisis decently.

I am therefore urging Member State governments to resist those ideas which are springing up everywhere: for example, the idea of taking national measures after the end of an EU Presidency. This is not the road we should be going down in Europe. Likewise, we must not trivialise the refugee crisis. This is why I have said that there are also obligations for refugees. We need to see the overall picture, look at everything that is happening, with a sense of solidarity. And given that the mass migration will continue, we need a permanent distribution mechanism between the 28 Member States of the European Union.

We are currently living in a time of referenda. Mr Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, is holding a referendum on the basis for distributing refugees between all 28 countries. And these referenda seem to be contagious. The United Kingdom will be holding its referendum on 23 June – although that cannot possibly go badly because it is also Luxembourg’s National Holiday. All will be fine. The Hungarians will be holding their referendum, and then the Dutch, with the good experience of referenda which there is here, will be holding theirs on 6 April. I will not be interfering. I once said it would be a bad idea to vote ‘no’ and was, in turn, savaged by the Dutch press, as if to say no one ever has the right to talk about matters concerning the Dutch people. Seen the other way round, this would mean that the Dutch no longer have the right to talk about matters affecting other people, which, if it were the case, would leave the Dutch newspapers half-empty. In this respect, I'll say it loud and clear: having one’s say without coming across like a schoolmaster is pointless. I have not come to the Netherlands to say: listen here; you should do this and that. This is not how things are done, most certainly not in the Netherlands.

It is no laughing matter, however. If the Dutch vote ‘no’, Europe will have a problem. That problem is destabilisation. We need to bear this in mind, because Ukraine expects Europe to stick to what was agreed. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that this is about Ukraine joining the EU. Many Dutch people I talk to in Brussels – ordinary people, not Commission officials – make that mistake. In reality, it is about trade and trade agreements. I can hardly imagine an old, successful trading nation like the Netherlands rejecting a trade agreement with a country, like Ukraine, that is so important for European stability. So let me repeat: we need to explain to people that it is not about EU accession. Ukraine will not join the EU during my term of office. In any case, I have said – rather bluntly – that there will be no new members over the next five years, because I do not believe any of the countries in waiting will fulfil the conditions in that time frame.

We have rushed things in the past when it comes to enlargement. I am also guilty, because I thought it was an historic event and that we had to reunite European history and geography. Hence the accession of the ‘new’ Member States (in 2004). In some cases, though, we jumped the gun, and we will not make the same mistake again. Ukraine will certainly not join the EU in the next 20 to 25 years. Nor will it join NATO, Secretary-General. I actually wanted to talk about the Dutch referendum, not lecture the Ukrainians, but I know many Dutch people are very worried that this will be the first step to Ukraine joining the EU. But we can definitely say that is not the case. I would therefore be happy if the Dutch voted ‘yes’, because it is about the Dutch, Europe and the other parts of Europe. Everybody who goes to the polls will be a statesman and should ask themselves what the final outcome would be if everybody else voted like them. I know the Dutch are practical people, and I expect them to vote ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’, because the last ‘no’ caused a lot of headaches in Europe. Luxembourg held the Council Presidency at the time, and now a Luxembourger is in the Commission President’s chair, and I do not want to have to go through that again.

Just a word on ‘Brexit’ – though without really saying anything, as I have resolved never to say much on the frequent occasions when I talk about it, since it would not be fitting for a Commission President to interfere in the British referendum campaign. The Commission is even more unpopular in the UK than in other countries, and it is quite an achievement to be unpopular in the UK. Everything a Commission President or the Commission says to the UK has unintended consequences. I would only say that the Prime Minister obtained as much as he could and the other 27 leaders gave as much as they could. It is a fair deal for the UK and for the other Member States. I would be very happy if we could consign the issue to confines of history as quickly as possible, because if it drags on for years, everything will go wrong in Europe. That is why there can be no renegotiation with the British, whom I am otherwise very fond of, after a ‘no’ vote. Not just because the Prime Minister voted against me as Commission President, but also because this time he was extremely glad we were able to help him sort out his problem, a problem of his own making.

When talking about Europe, we should not forget why, after the Second World War, the States of Europe decided not to repeat the crass errors of the last century. And the people returning home from the front and the concentration camps at the end of the war did not complain about the tasks that lay ahead as much as we do today. When I compare my life with my father’s it is clear to me that we are very fortunate. We grew up in bright sunshine, while others still have to live in darkness. Our fathers and grandfathers knew nothing but rain, thunderstorms and hail. So what is at stake is still the same. Verdun – 100 years ago. Verdun is a poignant story, because of the terrible things that happened there, but also because, at the end of the 1920s, young people from Germany and France shook hands on its battlefields. Then 10 years later it all started again – peace can never be taken for granted. Anyone who thinks peace is everlasting could not be more wrong. War is again being waged in Europe. When there was talk of war in Europe a couple of years ago, people laughed it off. No one is laughing any more after the events in Ukraine and Crimea. And we had no cause to laugh because 20 years ago war was raging in Bosnia, Kosovo and throughout the Balkans, which remains a highly complicated and sensitive region of Europe. That is why we must not lose sight of the Western Balkans when it comes to the refugee question.

So, I think that Europe will always benefit if we constantly remind people that it is a great project for peace. Those who do not believe in Europe, doubt it, or are exasperated by it should visit the graves of our wars.

Thank you "

Almere-Digest

EU: Will Populist Parties Run (Ruin) Europe? - by Judy Dempsey

Populism and Nationalism, two destructive political forces

Populism is on the rise in Europe but is unlikely to win enough votes to run Europe. Yet the risk that populism will run Europe by proxy is real if mainstream governments do not address the phenomenon’s underlying causes.

Leaders of the center-right and center-left are racing to embrace right-wing populist demagoguery in the hope of catching a few votes. This tactic does not pay off, as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico discovered in Slovakia’s parliamentary election on March 5. His embrace of the right-wing anti-immigration card boosted far-right parties more than his own. If voters want xenophobia, they will choose the real thing.

But Fico’s experience does not seem to be persuading mainstream politicians to stop chasing right-wing populism. Governments’ responses to the refugee influx are paralyzed by a fear of populism’s rise in upcoming elections.

Worse still, populists are framing the way in which the refugee challenge is debated. These fears are blocking the emergence of alternative solutions, in turn giving populists even more ammunition. If mainstream politics does not recapture the debate with alternative proposals and a vocabulary that reflects its principles (those that have held Europe together), it will put itself at the mercy of a populist minority.

Contrary to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s boldest dreams, illiberal national populists will not run Europe anytime soon. In many countries, the shrinking center still just about holds. But this should provide little comfort. Populists don’t need to run Europe to ruin it. Of course, the poison works best in countries where authoritarian populists control the government. The proudly illiberal regimes of Orbán and Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party, would fail to meet the Copenhagen criteria for acceding EU states.

But populists do not need to control the government to feed on and fuel a new age of fear in Europe: fear of the Other (especially Muslims) and fear of global competition. Populists’ seemingly easy answers—pull up the national drawbridge to keep Muslims and competition out—put pressure on terrified establishment elites and drag political culture to previously unseen lows, depriving policymaking of the oxygen of reason.

This trend is now also threatening to engulf Germany, so far one of the last islands of liberal democratic normalcy. If you want to know what a neurotic Germany feels like, take Bavarian Minister President Horst Seehofer as a harbinger of things to come. Not a pretty prospect for the dream of a self-confident liberal Europe in the twenty-first century.

Populist parties already run many European countries. Look at Central and Eastern Europe, where populists formally make up the government, or at France and the UK, where they set the tone of the political debate to a greater or lesser degree. There are reasons to believe that populist and other fringe political forces will increasingly shape Europe’s political landscape and polarize it along liberal versus illiberal or globalist versus territorialist dividing lines.

But the real question is not whether populists are likely to grab power in one or two more EU member states—although a French presidency led by the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen would be the end of Europe as we know it. The real (and currently materializing) threat is that so-called mainstream parties will gradually give up their fundamental principles of human rights, civil liberties, equality, and openness out of panic fear of a populist surge.

The rise of populism is sometimes a high but inevitable price to pay for a firm policy of not bowing to external pressures. The right-wing Alternative for Germany versus Chancellor Angela Merkel is a case in point. Perhaps Europe needs to accept this price. And instead of seeking to accommodate populists, Europe should try to mobilize those large parts of society that have lost not only confidence in the elites but also the belief that the stakes in today’s politics are high. If liberal democracy and open societies fall in Europe, it will happen by default, not because of an outright rejection by the people.

Read more: Judy Asks: Will Populist Parties Run Europe? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Netherlands Politics: Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls - by Corina Ruhe and Celeste Perri

Geert Wilders

The European Union is teetering, and Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders wants to tip it over the edge.

Wilders, 52, whose party leads opinion polls with calls to close Dutch borders to refugees, pledged to immediately pull the Netherlands out of the 28-nation EU should he become prime minister in elections due in March next year. The EU is unraveling and that’s to be encouraged, he said, urging the U.K. to quit the bloc in its forthcoming referendum.

“We are not sovereign any more; we are not even allowed to form our own immigration policy or even close our borders and I would do that,” Wilders said Thursday in an interview in the Dutch parliament building in The Hague. “I would wish the Dutch to be more like Switzerland. In the heart of Europe, but not in the European Union.”

A household name in the Netherlands since 2004, when he split from the mainstream Liberal party to form his own on an anti-Islam platform, the bouffant-haired blond has enjoyed a swell of support as voters grow increasingly alarmed at the arrival in Europe of more than a million refugees from Syria and elsewhere.

The latest poll showed him winning the most parliamentary seats -- as many as Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Liberals won in 2012 -- if elections were held now.

After years of turbulence surrounding Greek membership of the euro, the focus of uncertainty in the EU has shifted to Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron is set to call a referendum as early as June on whether the U.K. should stay in or leave. Wilders said he “hopes” Britons will opt to quit, with a knock-on effect on the Netherlands.

Note Almere Digest: Geert Wilders has never shown how he will carry out his plans in case he succeeds to pull the Netherlands out of the EU. 

He is a danger to the long-term economic, political and social stability of the Netherlands. His motto so well put by the French is : "Après moi, le déluge". 

Read more: Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls - Bloomberg Business

A United EU is closer than you think - The people want it. The elites are the obstacle - by Miguel Otero-Iglesias

There is a strong consensus on the eurozone crisis among economists and political analysts both in Europe and the United States: for the eurozone to endure, it would need to develop into a fiscal union and, consequently, a political one. In the same breath, however, influential commentators argue that this is politically unfeasible in the current context of a heightened North-South divide within Europe.

And there seems to be a strong consensus among pundits that political union in Europe is a pipe dream.
The problem is that this oft-repeated assertion — usually invoked as if it were irrefutable — is thrown at audiences without a shred of evidence to back it. The naysayers simply point to the latest European parliamentary elections as clear evidence of a rising tide of Euroskepticism.

In doing so, they err, for they equate Eurocritics with Euroskeptics. The French National Front and UKIP are against the very concept of the EU; but they should not be confused with Spain’s Podemos, Syriza in Greece, and the Italian Five Star Movement, who are against this EU in particular.

There is a big difference. If you give Alexis Tsipras, Pablo Iglesias or Beppe Grillo the chance of having a federal and democratic union, with a Commission president directly elected by the peoples of Europe, they would very likely sign up to it. Give it to Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen, however, and they would laugh in your face. That is the difference between Eurocritics and Euroskeptics.

Even among the Euroskeptics, the anti-EU rhetoric has a voting ceiling. Europe’s main political divide is not between those for or against the EU, but between those who are more cosmopolitan — and largely in favor of further integration under the principle of subsidiarity — and those who would like to withdraw behind their national borders.

That is why the National Front, UKIP and Alternative for Germany have switched from anti-EU rhetoric to anti-immigration discourse. They realize that their potential voters are not anti-European, but rather those who have lost out from globalization. Euroskeptics comprise no more than 15-20 percent of the electorate of any European country. In Germany, the EU’s largest member state, the figure is even lower.

That Euroskeptics are no more than 20 percent does not necessarily mean that the remaining 80 percent are keen to create a United States of Europe; far from it. However, the figure does call into question the widespread assertion that political union in Europe is impossible. There is little conclusive evidence on the subject. However, data from the Eurobarometer — the closest we have to a gauge for measuring public opinion in Europe — suggest that Europeans want more, not less, integration.

The difference is whether they live or not in the eurozone. While 67 percent of those within the zone are in favor of the euro, only 35 percent outside it are. In the UK the figure is 20 percent, but in Germany it rises to 74 percent. The same can be said about having a European identity. Up to 62 percent of those in the eurozone feel that they are European as well as their own nationality, but outside the eurozone the figure is 53 percent. Not surprisingly, only 39 percent of Britons feel European (compared with 64 percent of the French).

"For or against a European economic and monetary union with one single currency, the euro" 67% said yes,, 26 % said no, and 7% said they don't know.

"Do you see yourself as Nationality only; European and Nationality; European only; or Don't know;"-  61% considered themselves European and national, 34 % said they were more nationally oriented, 2 % said they considered themselves only European and 1% did not know./

Overall, the limited evidence available strongly suggests that Britons do not want further integration, but that all other Europeans, especially those in the eurozone, are more open to the idea. Fortunately, the Eurobarometer asks two more specific questions on the topic.

One is whether more decisions should be taken at the EU level. In that respect, ‘only’ 48 percent of Europeans are in favor, so enthusiasm about giving more power to Brussels is tepid. However, there are still more in favor than against (40 percent). Yet again there is a difference between the percentages within the eurozone — 50 percent — and those outside — 43 percent. 

The second, and more important question, is whether the EU should develop into a federation of nation states. Here, only 41 percent are in favor, but, again, those against are even fewer, at 34 percent. A whopping 25 percent just do not know. 

It may well be that the peoples of Europe (especially in the eurozone) want more integration, but that it is their national governmental elites that are holding back because they stand to lose the most from a greater degree of union.

For the latest  EU Barometer polls click here 

Britain: Explained Cameron and the EU: what does a Brexit mean?

The Conservative Party, led by British Prime Minister David Cameron, beat all expectations to win a parliamentary majority in the UK’s general election on May 7.

It raises the prospect of Britons getting the chance to vote in an in/out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

Cameron will be hoping that this gamble will pacify the Eurosceptic wing of his party and finally see off the threat of Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party (Ukip).

Tory infighting over Europe saw the last two Conservative premiers, John Major and Margaret Thatcher, pushed out of office by rebel ministers and backbench MPs.

Cameron says he will only offer the British public the chance to vote on severing all ties with Brussels once he has secured a series of reforms from the 28-member bloc.

Note EU-Digest: Wishful thinking by Mr. Cameron who seems to forget that the only reason he won the election was because he was the best candidate among all the terrible candidates put together. 

Read more: Explained Cameron and the EU: what does a Brexit mean? | euronews, world news

Corporate Influence: Poll: 99% of people polled say corporations wield too much power

In the latest EU-Digest poll which ran through the month of June on: "Do Corporations Have Too Much Influence On Global Governance ?" -  99% of the people polled said corporations wield too much power.

In our new July EU-Digest poll the question focuses on the possibility of Britain leaving the EU.
Should Britain Quit the EU ?

EU-Digest

"Britain on road to disaster": Cameron’s EU ‘debacle’ proves he is a threat to British economy, says Miliband

 David Cameron poses a “real and present danger” to the economy because his doomed bid to block Jean-Claude Juncker leads Britain towards an exit from the European Union that could put up to three million jobs and thousands of businesses at risk, Ed Miliband said today.

Note EU-Digest:  When will Britain understand that the "power" of the British Empire has come to an end and that their only chance to remain a valuable player on the world's political and economic scene is in participation with the other 27 members of the EU.

Read more: Cameron’s EU ‘debacle’ proves he is a threat to British economy, says Miliband | The Times

EU's new President Jean-Claude Juncker - Profile

Jean-Claude Juncker

Among EU government leaders only the UK and Hungarian prime ministers voted against him at an EU summit on 27 June.

Crucially Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel backed his bid - after some hesitation - as did the centre-left leaders of France and Italy.

There are many voices in the European Parliament too who argue that Mr Juncker should get the job. The parliament believes the choice of European Commission president now has to reflect the election result.

Yet he is a controversial figure in the EU, as a leading advocate of deeper EU integration, and is often called a "federalist"
.
A veteran of Brussels deal-making, he headed the powerful Eurogroup - the eurozone finance ministers - at the height of the eurozone crisis, when crucial decisions were taken about austerity and bailout conditions.

He was prime minister of Luxembourg from 1995 to 2013 and one of the architects of the euro.

But according to Pierre Leyers, financial editor of the daily Luxemburger Wort, it is misleading to call him a "federalist". "He wants deeper integration, but not a European superstate," he told the BBC.

Mr Leyers argues that coming from a tiny country has enhanced Mr Juncker's influence in the EU, odd though that may seem to people unfamiliar with Brussels politics.

Luxembourg was a founding member of the community which became the EU and, sandwiched between France and Germany, "it had no choice but to try to be on good terms with its neighbours", Mr Leyers said.

 "So some Luxembourg politicians were always good negotiators and diplomats, to get France and Germany together."

The drive for post-war reconciliation shaped Mr Juncker's political views.

But some of his past remarks have raised eyebrows, suggesting a less than firm commitment to democracy.

Ahead of the French vote on the European Constitution in 2005 he said: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'"
.
And in 2011 he said "monetary policy is a serious issue - we should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup... I am for secret, dark debates".

His greatest EU challenge has been shoring up the eurozone since the 2008 financial crash, when Greece's colossal debts, and those of other struggling eurozone countries, threatened the very survival of the single currency.

Mr Juncker is a strong advocate of a European "solidarity" union - an EU that strives to raise living standards in its poorest regions and sectors.

He has not explained how an EU-US free trade deal might impact on EU social protection policies, which currently cost the EU many billions through support for farmers and projects to help poor communities.

He claimed that such a deal would give each European an extra 545 euros (£443; $742) - an exaggeration, according to a fact check by Eurovision, which hosted the debate.

He has also defended the Common Agricultural Policy, saying agriculture employs about 30 million Europeans. But the UK government is among the many critics who say the CAP is wasteful and want more of the EU budget spent on digital technologies, research and investment in small businesses.

Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe think-tank, says Mr Juncker is associated with the EU of the 1980s and 1990s, echoing a criticism attributed to UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

After an election that saw a surge in support for Eurosceptic parties, that connection with past EU policies may be a disadvantage, Mr Persson told the BBC, adding that Mr Juncker was "sidelined quite a bit during the eurozone crisis" and "ran a vague election campaign".

However, Mr Juncker is not vague about the political risks of taking tough economic decisions. He once said "we all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it"

EU-Digest

Read more:

European Parliamentary Elections: More Controversy Or More Democracy With Eurosceptics As Part Of Equation? - by RM

The number of people voting in the EU elections this year was around 43.09% - a small increase from the turnout 5 years ago.

In comparison with other countries; at the last US 2010 Congressional elections, which you can compare to the EU Parliamentary elections, the turnout based on US government statistics was 37.8%.

As for what the radical conservatives and their supporters in the press call the BIG win of the EU "Radical Nationalist Conservatives" like Le Pen and Nigel Farage, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Obviously this must be raising concerns with the ruling centrist pro-EU parties, but the success of those fringe party's should also be put into a realistic context of comparing numbers and percentages.

No doubt, when one party goes from having 3 seats in the EU parliament to 6 seats that statistically is a 100% gain for the party, but in the actual number of seats they gained versus the number of seats controlled by the ruling majority, it only represents a drop in the bucket.

Nevertheless, moderate European politicians have had their wake-up call. Europe now has its own equivalent to the US Tea party.

The EU-Commission, the EU-Parliament and the EU member state Parliaments have to start doing a far vbetter job at informing their close to half a billion EU constituents about the benefits of the European Union.

It certainly won't hurt, at least in this case, to copy some of the "Proud to be an American" campaign techniques from the US, so eventually we can also say without any doubt - "Proud to be a European".

EU-Digest

Opinion: We must value the EU once again - by Christoph Hasselbach

No one can say it was inevitable, but it was expected. The next European Parliament will be even more fragmented than the last. Representatives from both far-left and far-right parties will be moving to Strasbourg in greater numbers than before. As for turnout, the picture is mixed: in some countries more people voted than before, but those votes often went to Euro-skeptic parties.

All in all, the general public's interest in the EU is shockingly low - even though all the parties tried their best to motivate the electorate. For the first time, they chose leading candidates to tour the continent and debate each other. They tried hard to personalize and enliven the election, and make it more relevant. It did little good.

The only reassuring thing is that the parliament will remain functional, despite all the enemies in its own ranks. The representatives from UKIP, the Front National, the Danish People's Party will deliver angry speeches, but they won't really be able to block anything - because they differ from one another too much - they're too focused on their own nationalism.

By the same token, their rhetoric is always directed at their own voters in their respective home countries. They prefer to be the voice of the dissatisfied, rather than develop a major common project. This will cause the centrist, Europe-friendly parties to stick closer together. No, the Euro-skeptic extremists don't present a threat, at least not in the European Parliament.

The debt crisis of a few years ago showed how quickly an old order could be overthrown. The EU itself was peering into the abyss. That crisis has been overcome, more or less, but only thanks to common effort, mutual aid, and discipline. If each country had tried to find its way out of its crisis on its own, they would all have lost - even the stronger among them. Is that too long ago to still be a lesson?

How high the stakes are in Europe can also be seen from the Ukraine crisis: 25 years after the end of the Cold War, we're in danger of entering a new long-term European conflict. Astonishingly, the Ukraine crisis barely played a role in the election campaign, even though the EU is perhaps the best example of what balance and cooperation can achieve.

I met an African election observer at the last European election in 2009. When he saw the turnout figures - of 43 percent, the same as this time around - he shook his head and said, "In a lot of African states we'd be glad to have any free elections at all. And you Europeans throw away your rights!" It was a humbling meeting.
If we in the EU have no bigger problems than a few over-bureaucratic directives, then we really do have it good. Maybe we have it too good to appreciate the miracle of peace and common prosperity that we gained 70 years ago.

Read more: Opinion: We must value the EU once again | Europe | DW.DE | 26.05.2014

European parliamentary elections: better together

Divided we fall - United we win

This week's European parliament elections are the most important of their kind for years. Since the last vote in 2009, Europe has been buffeted by banking failures and sovereign debt crisis, while Europeans in and out of the eurozone have been compelled to undergo prolonged austerity programmes.

The social damage of these measures, however necessary some may argue they were in economic terms, has been profound, lowering living standards and calling into question the long-term sustainability of European welfare and employment models. Hostility to the European Union has increased to new levels in many nations, fuelled by tensions over migration, and often matched by a wider domestic disillusionment with the national political classes of the member states, whose authority has rarely seemed more compromised.

Meanwhile, the EU is confronted with a foreign policy crisis in Ukraine which exposes the limits of Europe's influence in its own near-abroad. This is resetting relations with Russia into a more confrontational form at the same time as a relatively weakened United States redirects its principal focus towards Asia, and hopes of greater stability in Turkey and the Arab world recede. Europe's defence response is in disarray, with a poll this week showing four Germans in five opposed to future military missions. In such circumstances, elections to a parliament which has just acquired new powers might logically seem a moment of importance, and the way we cast our votes this week a matter of consequence, not least because the parliament can shape the next European commission, which must wrestle with these issues, one of which may include Britain's future in the EU.

In some respects, Europe's politicians have tried to rise to the occasion, although their efforts have been ignored in Britain. Elsewhere, the main European parliamentary blocs have attempted a pan-European debate, in which differing approaches to austerity and its legacies have been clearcut. But the elites' worthy attempts to connect with the public in Europe founder on the reality that the elites are widely and in some ways rightly perceived (the ludicrous Strasbourg-Brussels shuttle, for instance) as part of the problem.

Most of the main party blocs favour shifting more authority to the centre, to the Brussels institutions, the parliament prominent among them. The problem is that the elite debate excludes growing numbers who want far less power at the centre (or none at all), and overlooks the 70% or so of the population in many countries, including Germany and France (where a poll this week found only 39% support for the EU), who do not want more power at the centre and who favour significant reform of the EU.

Read more: European parliament elections: better together | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

Our EU Digest Poll in relation to this weeks EU Parliamentary Elections which was closed today showed the following results.

The Poll shows a potential strong showing by the so-called Eurosceptic parties while traditional pro-EU political  parties will remain in power.

Our new poll which runs through June 22 asks the question:  

"Do Corporations Have Too Much Influence On Global Governance?"

EU-Digest

European Parliamentary Elections: Polls show Europe's centre-right leads by a sliver before next weeks EU elections

EU-Digest Poll shows close race

The center-right is set to win the most seats in European Parliament elections next week, but its wafer-thin poll lead suggests the chances of securing the presidency of the European Commission are uncertain.

The European People's Party (EPP) will take 212 seats in the May 22-25 vote, according to an analysis of national polls on Wednesday by PollWatch 2014, only three more seats than its center-left rivals, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D).

There are 751 seats in the parliament, around 70 percent of which are expected to go to Europe's four mainstream groups - the center-right, center-left, Liberals and Greens.

Around a quarter of seats look likely to be won by anti-EU or protest parties on the far-right and far-left, almost double their standing at the last election in 2009. That's largely because of voter frustration with high unemployment and low growth.

Under EU rules introduced in 2009, the party that wins the election is best placed to have its top candidate become the president of the European Commission, one of Brussels' most powerful jobs, with far-reaching influence over legislation.

But while the EPP may just edge out the Socialists in the vote, according to Wednesday's survey, the Socialists are better placed to secure allegiances with other parties on the left, potentially helping them secure a majority in parliament.

Since the nominee for Commission president must be approved by parliamentary majority, the Socialists may be able to argue that their candidate has greater legitimacy than the center-right EPP's.
The nomination for Commission president will be made by EU leaders, who are required to "take into account" the results of the election in making their choice.

The EPP has chosen Jean-Claude Juncker, 59, the former prime minister of Luxembourg and a central broker during the euro zone debt crisis, as their candidate to succeed Portugal's Jose Manuel Barroso, who has led the Commission since 2004.

The Socialists are backing Germany's Martin Schulz, 58, the current head of the European Parliament and an ardent campaigner for more money to be spent helping young people get jobs.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, known as ALDE, have chosen former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt as their candidate for Commission president. But PollWatch's latest survey sees the Liberals taking just 63 seats.

The European Parliamentary elections will be held throughout the 28 EU member states from 22 to 25 May 2014 - let your voice be heard - VOTE -  IT IS OUR EUROPEAN UNION.

Read more: Europe's centre-right leads by a sliver before EU election: poll | Reuters

Britain: Exit EU, Scrapping Regulations and Business Ethics to benefit Britain, says winner prize for "best UK exit plan" from EU

Corporate control, no rules and regulations,  no business ethics, manipulation of food through bio-engineering,  wile Government and people are left to the mercy of  powerful lobby groups. This is what Britain would look like, say some International Economists, if they would follow Ian Mansfield plan for quitting the EU.

But Britain's free market Institute of Economic Affairs thought differently applauded this plan recently by awarding a 100,000-euro prize to Iain Mansfield, a British diplomat based in the Philippines, who it decided had come up with the best blueprint for a 'Brexit,' a British departure from the EU.

Reuters reports that amid widespread public disenchantment in Britain about the EU's perceived over-bearing role in everyday life Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to give Britons a referendum on leaving the EU in 2017 if he is re-elected next year.

Many British opinion polls suggest a slim majority would vote to leave the 28-nation bloc and that the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) is on course to come first or second in elections to the European Parliament next month.

Mansfield said Britain could join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) to avoid bureaucratic burdens on business linked to Britain's membership of the EU, saying it could position itself as somewhere between Switzerland and Turkey, neither of which are EU member states.

What Mr Mansfield, Eurosceptics and PM Cameron don't seem to understand is that" you can't have your cake and eat it too ! "

EU-Digest

Capitalism: Has Anglo-American Capitalism Run Out of Steam? - by George Irvin

The Real News Network has published an interesting interview with SEJ author George Irvin about inequality in the UK and the US and the wider question of whether Anglo-American Capitalism has run out of steam. Watch the full interview : click on the link below below.

Read more: Has Anglo-American Capitalism Run Out of Steam?

Netherlands: Geert Wilders "a racist A-hole" screams headline of the AD newspaper - Is he? - "Absolutely" say majority of Dutch voters

Geert Wilders may have blown his chances in the European elections, writes Robin Pascoe in the Dutch News.NL following his racist statements last night in the Hague.

Even though Wilders party the PVV  fielded candidates only  in The Hague and the city of Almere, Wilders must have hoped it was going to be his night in the Hague, just like in 2010.

The party was pretty well assured of remaining the biggest in the polder city of Almere and looked set to dominate in fhe Hague as well.

It did not work out for Wilders as he had hoped.

Support for the PVV fell in both places - almost one percentage point in Almere and 2.6 percentage points in The Hague. Only Government coalition partners Labour and the VVD did worse in the city of peace and justice.

Before the results became known, however, Wilders was prepared to triumph. He entered the party meeting in The Hague - once again - as he called it, "the eye of the Tiger",  from the theme of the movie Rocky. He wanted to be the classic underdog looking to deliver a knock-out blow to the political establishment in The Hague.

He spoke of what a great night it was - even though the results that interested him were not yet out - and then came the chanting. 'Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands?,’ Wilders asked the crowd. They chanted ‘fewer, fewer, fewer’. 'We're going to organize it,' Wilders said with a faint smile.

"It ain't going to happen - you racist A-hole", said a political opponent. .

EU-Digest

Dutch EU elections: 'Are you for or against Europe?' - for say a large majority

On a recent Saturday afternoon in January, volunteers in the Dutch city of Utrecht were handing out soup and hot chocolate on behalf of the ruling coalition’s centre-left Labour Party. There was an open air event, with speeches and music, to mark the beginning of its electoral campaign.

This does not mean that Dutch voters are already thinking about the May elections to the European Parliament, however.

Labour held the Utrecht event because there are local elections on 19 March: The EU elections are barely on the public's radar.

While over half of respondents to a recent poll knew there will be another election this year, only a quarter knew that it will be for the EU parliament. Just three percent were able to pinpoint the date: 22 May.Interior minister Ronald Plasterk, a Labour member, expects the campaigns for the two elections to be “very distinct” from each other.

“The campaign for the European elections will be about the question 'are you for or against Europe’,” he told this website, referring to the prevailing issue on people's minds.

He added that the question "doesn't make sense."

But at the same time, the “are you in or are you out” of the EU framework, which British Prime Minister David Cameron has put on the agenda in Britain, is popular in the Netherlands too.

Three days after the Labour event, a group of eurosceptics gathered in the Dutch parliament in The Hague.

Some 63,000 people signed a citizens’ initiative to “stop the creeping transfer of powers to the EU” and to demand a referendum if more powers are transferred to Brussels. The spokesperson for the initiative was invited to speak to parliament on the issue.

A majority of MPs (112 to 38) voted No to a proposed referendum for the next potential transfer of powers, however. 

A Cameron-style referendum on leaving the EU altogether received even less support. Only the Socialist Party (15 seats), the Party for Freedom (14 seats), and an MP who recently left the Freedom party, voted in favour. 

Note EU-Digest: "the  eurosceptics are living in a dream world and need to do a reality check - only a United Europe makes any sense in today's world if Europe wants to benefit economically by having a voice in the Global Power structure ", said a Dutch Parliamentarian.

Read more: EUobserver / Dutch EU elections: 'Are you for or against Europe?'

Global GNP: Holland outside the EU would be reduced to the same level of global importance as Florida

Netherlands equal to state of Florida

How does the U.S. economy measure up to the rest of the world? You could find out by poring over a table of GDP figures, or you could get a snap perspective from this map, which renames every U.S. state according to a country with a matching GDP.

One million Rhode Islanders have as much wealth as 15 million Guatemalans. Texas has an economy the size of Australia’s. And New York has met its match, Mexico.

The map from economist Mark J. Perry at the American Enterprise Institute puts America’s $16 trillion GDP in perspective. “The map and these statistics help remind us of the enormity of the economic powerhouse we live in,” Perry writes, at least to the 4% of the world’s population that lives there.

The Netherlands economy (GDP) is approximately the same as that of the state Florida in the USA with a similar number of inhabitants (17 million people) . 

This report underscore the fact that if the EU would break up - as most of the Eurosceptics would like to see happen -  individual EU member-states would not be able to play any significant role on the global scene in relation to international trade, economics, finances, jurisdiction or military matters. 

In other words a united Europe can be a master of its own fate but divided it will fall.

Read more: GDP Map of U.S. States Compared to World | TIME.com