EU: "Our Love Affair With The US Is Over": European hackles - more than hopes - are up as Trump takes office

"Don't mess with the EU Mr. Trump"

Europe has spent the period between the shock election of Donald Trump and his ascension to the White House biting its nails. But the new president's recent disparagement of the future of the European Union -- basically that it may not have one at all -- has leaders finally sounding less worried and more assertive.

In the European Parliament's plenary session Wednesday, the head of the ALDE group, Guy Verhofstadt, raged against the remarks, demanding a formal EU response.  "It's insane!" he said. "We should be very conscious this will be a turning point on the 20th of January."

Verhofstadt also suggested to fellow lawmakers the "American ambassador" should be summoned to "explain Trump's statements".

The problem with that is that there is no "American ambassador" to the EU anymore. As of January 20, Anthony Gardner will no longer be in his office in Brussels as President Trump takes over his in Washington. Gardner, along with his counterparts at NATO and the EU, is among those the new president told in no uncertain terms to vacate their premises by inauguration.

It is likely to be many months before Trump-appointed ambassadors arrive in Brussels. One US diplomat explained that usually during presidential campaigns, there is a shadow administration -- with skeleton cabinets already assembled -- which can move into place the minute the keys are handed over after inauguration. The Trump campaign, this diplomat said, had no such system in place on election day.

Gardner, an unabashed EU admirer who spent his three-year tenure campaigning for the Transatlantic Free Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP] and other forms of closer cooperation, said he'd decided he would rather go out "in a ball of flames" than be seen to acquiesce with the new administration's views on Europe.

"It's critically important," Gardner said in his last roundtable with journalists, "that while being loyal to the new team -- which is absolute right and appropriate in a democratic system -- that people speak truth to power and don't be shy in sometimes saying what [they] believe in."

Gardner said he had received no communication from incoming officials asking him for guidance on EU relations -- only a single phone call asking if he needed logistical help moving out by the deadline. He had, however, heard from EU contacts that the new  president's team had made some calls to EU leaders -- with the priority being to inquire which country was most likely to leave the bloc, he said.

Gardner made no secret of his views. "The EU, despite all of the issues that we see everyday living and being here," Gardner insisted, "is not about to fall apart!" But he confirmed that the prevailing view at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave from Friday forward appears to be that "2017 is the year" in which the EU disintegrates.


Across town at NATO headquarters, officials are equally concerned about what's to come, especially after the same interview that suggested multiple EU mutinies also reiterated the disparagement of NATO as "obsolete". One NATO diplomat said he'd been asked by a European colleague whether "obsolete" could possibly have more than one meaning in American English, but that he'd had no euphemistic alternatives to offer.

Top military officials in the alliance for the most part dismiss such characterizations, as do Trump's own cabinet nominees. Vice President-elect Mike Pence has also done his share to buff the rough edges of Trump rhetoric, saying NATO "will go on".

Note EU-Digest: We can only hope that EU member state governments finally realize that the "love affair" between Europe and the US  has come to an end. 

There always will be a Europe, but we can not be so sure about the USA, which in reality is more divided than ever under the presidency of Donald Trump.  It is high time for the EU to level the playing field and move on.

More than hopes - are up as Trump takes office | Europe | DW.COM | 19.01.2017

US - EU relations: Europe forced off the US lap and Alone in Trump’s World

Will Trump signal the end of the Trans=Atlantic Alliance

Alone again. Since World War II’s end, Europe has looked at the world through a transatlantic lens.

There have been ups and downs in the alliance with the United States, but it was a family relationship built on a sense that we would be there for each other in a crisis and that we are fundamentally like-minded.

Donald Trump’s election as US president threatens to bring this to an end – at least for now. He believes more in walls and oceans than solidarity with allies, and has made it clear that he will put America not just first, but second and third as well. “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people,” he declared in his one major foreign-policy speech, “to the false song of globalism.”

Europeans will not only have to get used to Trump; they will have to look at the world through different eyes. There are four reasons to expect that Trump’s America will be the single biggest source of global disorder.

First, American guarantees are no longer reliable. Trump has questioned whether he would defend Eastern European NATO members if they do not do more to defend themselves. He has said that Saudi Arabia should pay for American security. He has encouraged Japan and South Korea to obtain nuclear weapons. In Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, Trump has made it clear that America will no longer play the role of policeman; instead, it will be a private security company open for hire.

Second, global institutions will come under attack. Trump fundamentally rejects the view that the liberal world order that the US built after WWII (and expanded after the Cold War) is the cheapest way of defending American values and interests. Like George W. Bush after September 11, 2001, he views global institutions as placing intolerable constraints on US freedom of action. He has a revisionist agenda for almost all of these bodies, from the World Trade Organization to NATO and the United Nations.

The fact that he wants to put the “Art of the Deal” into practice in all international relationships – renegotiating the terms of every agreement – is likely to provoke a similar backlash among America’s partners.

Third, Trump will turn all US relationships on their head. The crude fear is that he will be kinder to America’s foes than to its allies. Most challenging for Europeans is his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Should Trump, cozying up to Putin in search of a grand bargain, recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the EU would be placed in a near-impossible role.

Fourth, there is Trump’s unpredictability. Even during the 18 months of the presidential campaign, Trump has been on both sides of almost every issue. The fact that he will say the opposite today of what he said yesterday, without admitting that he has changed his mind, shows the extent to which capriciousness is his method.

One of the benefits the US political system is that it provides a two-month grace period to prepare for Trump’s world. So what should Europeans do about it?

First, we need to try to increase leverage over the US. We know from Trump’s writings and behavior that he is likely to resemble other strongmen presidents and treat weakness as an invitation to aggression. We saw from the Iraq experience that a divided Europe has little ability to influence the US. But where Europe has worked together – on privacy, competition policy, and taxation – it has dealt with the US from a position of strength.

The same was true with the so-called E3+3 policy on Iran – when the big EU member states shifted the US stance by standing together. To get on the front foot, the EU now needs to launch a process to agree on common policies on security, foreign policy, migration, and the economy. This will be difficult, as Europe is deeply divided, with France fearing terrorism, Poland dreading Russia, Germany inflamed by the refugee issue, and the United Kingdom determined to go it alone.

Second, Europeans should show that they are able to hedge their bets and build alliances with others. The EU must reach out to other powers to help shore up global institutions against Trumpian revisionism. And it also needs to diversify its foreign-policy relationships. Rather than waiting for Trump to marginalize the EU over Russia and China, Europeans should fly some kites of their own. Should they, for example, begin consulting with the Chinese on the EU arms embargo to remind the US of the value of the transatlantic alliance? Could the EU develop a different relationship with Japan? And if Trump wants to cozy up to Russia, maybe he should take over the Normandy process on Ukraine?

Third, Europeans need to start to invest in their own security. From Ukraine to Syria, from cyber attacks to terror attacks, Europe’s security is being probed in different ways. Despite an intellectual understanding that 500 million Europeans can no longer contract out their security to 300 million Americans, the EU has done little to close the gap between its security needs and its capabilities. It is time to put meat on the bones of the Franco-German plan for European defense. And it will be important to find institutionalized ways of binding the UK into Europe’s new security architecture.

In all of these areas, Europeans must keep the door to transatlantic cooperation open. This alliance – which has so often saved Europe from itself – is bigger than any individual. And, in any case, Trump will not last forever. But the transatlantic relationship will be more likely to survive if it is built on two pillars that understand and defend their own interests.

This will be a tough agenda to adopt – not least because Europe is facing its own brand of populist nationalism. France’s far-right National Front leader, Marine Le Pen, was among the first to congratulate Trump on his victory, and Trump has said that he would put the UK at the front of the queue after Brexit. But even Europe’s most Trump-like leaders will find it harder to defend their national interest if they try to go it alone. To survive in Trump’s world, they should try to make Europe great again.

Read more: Europe, Alone in Trump’s World | European Council on Foreign Relations

EU: It is high time we stand up for our Europe - "united we stand but divided we will fall"

Our Europe is in danger. 

Nationalism, xenophobia and insularity threaten its fundamental values.

Our Europe, the most impressive political construction of modern times, cannot stand by as national governments jeopardise its democratic, economic, social, cultural and environmental model.

They have shown inertia and distrust when faced first with economic crisis, then with refugees and most recently with terrorism. Each successive threat has been worsened by a lack of cooperation and coordination between European governments.

The time has surely come for Europe’s citizens to make our voices heard, to express our desire for ever stronger unity and solidarity, for deeper political union.

Europe is not the cause of our problems, but the solution. For too long, our fate has sat in the hands of national and foreign leaders and partially discredited European institutions.

Once a symbol of peace, openness and solidarity, Europe has become synonymous with insularity, exclusion and self-absorption. And where Europeans are increasingly struggling to see their values reflected.

Let us not consign ourselves to helplessness, to a lack of confidence, to doubts and fears, to images of refugees dying at our borders because of a lack of solidarity from member states and because our leaders do not have the courage to do the right thing.

It is now urgent for us to move beyond the strictly national arena and to construct a truly European political foundation to take on the challenges of globalisation, modernity and a revived democracy through the direct elections of EU leaders and a progressive independent foreign policy which is not tied to any destructive foreign nation's policy.

Our sense of belonging to a European people, to a community of values, is too often thwarted by our inability to translate this desire into politics.  We need to continuously send messages to our political leaders, stating that Europe is our nation and that it can have no future without political union and the construction of a firm shell around a united European state with its own foreign policy.

“If we cannot dream of a better Europe, we will never construct a better Europe” Václav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic once said.. Let us show our desire for Europe to step forward.

Let us fly Europe’s flag – our flag – on our social network profiles, our web pages, our houses, our cars and bikes, everywhere!

This call is supported, among others, by VOXEurope, Fabien Cazenave, Pietro De Matteis (Federalist Party), Bernard Guetta (France Inter), Eric Jozsef (Libération), Ovidiu Nahoi (Dilema Veche, RFI Romania), Wojciech Przybylski (Eurozine), José Ignacio Torreblanca (El País), Anne Tréca, Nicolas Vadot (Le Vif), Francesco Belluscio, Mario Benvenuto, Esther Cordero, Luca Feltrin, Sabrina Paglierani, Davide Pozzo, EU-Digest

EU-Digest

Opinion: Brexit poses challenge to peace in Europe

The German government - most of its members convinced, experienced Europeans - knows this, but can't say it out loud. A bitter foretaste of what's to come for the Germans and all the other Europeans is that an issue of existential importance for all is being voted on by no one but Britain: everyone else has no say in the matter.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is especially aware of the dilemma. It knows that at least in this question, it's backed by the majority of Germans. But no matter what German ministers or the chancellor herself have to say, it's almost certain to be used against them, and against the EU, in Germanophobe Britain.

The German finance minister - who is considered a hardliner, just ask the Greeks - summarized this dilemma in one sad sentence. Asked in London in March what Germany would do if Britain left the EU, Wolfgang Schäuble said: "We would cry."

Angela Merkel has taken a public vow of silence where the Brexit is concerned. Little more is said than the repeated affirmation that of course Berlin believes Britain should be in the EU - always accompanied by the assertion that it's up to the British people to decide. When there are no microphones nearby, the chancellor takes a more concrete stance, stating that a Brexit would be "terrible."

 Tears and terror aside, the economic cost of a Brexit would be high for everyone, from London and Manchester to Paris, Berlin and Warsaw - but highest of all for Britain. Even Brexit supporters seem to suspect that leaving the EU would be economic idiocy.

So their arguments have come to target emotions instead, and the retreat to a nation of one's own - with its suggested greater self-determination and simplicity. And that's where they cross paths with their right-wing populist European brethren. Nationalists of all countries, unite - in order to separate.

But it is the political consequences of a Brexit that could truly be awful.

For all the historically illiterate talk of an EasyJet generation, the Europe that forged monetary union, and that was built upon the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Community always was, and is, a project of peace.

It was never ultimately about coal, but about cannons. This difficult trade-off is only possible if all of Europe's large states are engaged in the major everyday issues and the many small details.

Without London, the EU would find itself imbalanced. Berlin would be pushed into assuming a dominance it doesn't want and can't cope with. The German finance minister knows what that could mean - again, ask the Greeks: People no longer believe Germany is acting in Europe's interests

 In the first half of the last century, European crises resulted in war; the second half - not least thanks to the treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht - brought peace to an extent that in this century, it seems a given.

But it isn't. Military solutions seem acceptable once more - just look to Europe's eastern fringes. Hostile warships might one day patrol the English Channel again, not in three or five years, but perhaps 30 years from now - just because back in 2016, quite needlessly, the wrong answers were given to the wrong questions.

Yet right now, no one in the German government can say that out loud.

Euroskepticism’s empty promises - not able to spell out their alternatives to European integration

With so much effort aimed at dismantling the European project, it is time to ask the Euroskeptics to spell out their alternatives to European integration. Of course, many conservative and libertarian Euroskeptics, such as Daniel Hannan, stress that their goal is not to destroy political cooperation on the continent, or even to return to protectionism.

What they want is to return to a Europe made up of sovereign, democratic and self-governing nation states that are cosmopolitan and open to trade, investment, and, to a large degree, to immigration.

Boris Johnson, for example, famously identified himself as being “about the only politician … who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration.” The EU, argue the skeptics, is neither a necessary nor sufficient guarantee of such openness. The EU, they say, is a distortion that opens market and migrant flows within Europe, while jealously guarding itself against competition from overseas.

Born out of the ashes of World War II, the aim of the European integration project was to make war between Europe’s leading nations impossible. It would do this by tying them together economically and politically, in what should have become a European federal state.

The EU’s critics like to emphasize that the premise is outdated, and that the animated policy debates in the 1940s and 1950s are now obsolete. As L.P. Hartley’s proverbial quote goes, the past is a foreign country — they do things differently there.

In reality, any alternative to being strong and united as one in Europe, is doomed to eventualy  backfire, 

Unfortunately many shortsighted Euroskeptics seem to believe that "charity starts at home".

Read more: Euroskepticism’s empty promise – POLITICO

May Day Celebrations Europe: National issues highlighted in Europe’s May Day rallies

May Day celebrations turned sour in Istanbul as Turkish police fired tear gas and sprayed water cannon at anti-government protesters.

They were prevented from entering the main Taksim Square which was closed by the authorities.
A man was killed in an accident after being run over by a police truck
.
Security was tight with some 15,000 police deployed, following two terrorist attacks in the city this year blamed on ISIL.

In Paris the events were marked by opposition to the French government’s labour reforms, aimed at freeing up the hiring and firing of workers to tackle chronic unemployment.

One young protester in the Place de la Bastille echoed the feelings of many: “liberalising the labour market is not democratic and social progress,” he said.

Many countries had their own particular theme. In Germany unions called on people to oppose xenophobia , right-wing extremism and a divided society.

The main rally took place in Stuttgart, where the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was holding its congress – and on Sunday, voted to back an election manifesto saying Islam was incompatible with the constitution.

Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella paid tribute to people killed at the workplace, laying a wreath at the headquarters in Rome of the government agency for insurance against work-related injuries. Last year saw a 16 percent increase in fatal injuries at work.

Rome’s San Giovanni Square is also the venue for a traditional May Day concert. The organisers dedicated this year’s event to Italian student Giulio Regeni, murdered in Egypt.

Left-wing party leaders joined thousands in Madrid as Spain’s two main unions highlighted low pay, workers’ rights and social exclusion – targeting the outgoing conservative government eight weeks before parliamentary elections.

Moscow staged its traditional rally in Red Square – while thousands of Russian communists also marched, nostalgic for the Soviet past as they called for a return to state-controlled resources.

Read more: National issues highlighted in Europe’s May Day rallies | euronews, world news

EU Rule of Law Crises: Europe’s Rule-of-Law "obstructed by Hungary and Poland "- by Guy Verhofstadt

Rule of Law - one of the basic princiles of Democracy

From the rubble of two world wars, European countries came together to launch what would become the world’s largest experiment in unification and cooperative, shared sovereignty. But, despite its impressive achievements over the decades, the European project now risks disintegration.

An unresolved financial crisis, a refugee crisis, a deteriorating security environment, and a stalled integration process have created throughout Europe a toxic, unstable political environment in which populism and nationalism thrive. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of this is the erosion of the rule of law in the European Union.

Two EU members in particular, Hungary and Poland, are now jeopardizing hard-won European democratic norms – and thus undermining the very purpose of European integration.

In Hungary, liberal-democratic values have come under systematic attack from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government. Since his return to the premiership in 2010, Orbán has committed Hungary to an authoritarian nationalist path, and he has exploited the refugee crisis to cement a “siege mentality” that helps him sustain popular support.

In the process, fundamental rights have been ignored, media freed refugees have been demonized, and Orbán is doing everything in his power to weaken the EU. Attempts by EU institutions to convince Orbán to change course have only emboldened him to commit further outrages against democratic norms.

Meanwhile, a democratic crisis has emerged in Poland as well, starting last October, when the Law and Justice (PiS), a Euroskeptic party that also opposes immigration, secured an outright parliamentary majority by promising to implement populist economic policies and “put Poland first.” Yet, since the election, PiS has launched a series of attacks on the Polish constitution itself.

Government legislation aimed at reforming Poland’s Constitutional Court has been condemned by the Court itself and the European democracy watchdog, the Venice Commission. The government has effectively precluded the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. This weakens a key pillar of the democratic rule of law – and thus is highly problematic for Poland and Europe alike.

Hungary and Poland are the leading edge of a far-right agenda that has taken hold throughout Europe, pursued by parties that are exploiting the political vacuum created by the EU’s failure to address the financial and refugee crises. So how can the tables be turned?

In democratic countries, it is vital that democracy’s enemies be fought with democratic means. It is vital that the outside world impress on the Hungarian and Polish people themselves that in a globalized world, nationalism offers only false security and economic irrelevance. Both countries, at the heart of Europe, have profited enormously in every sense from EU membership; they must not throw away their opportunity to make further progress.

Hungarians and Poles rejected international isolation in 1989. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, both countries became staunch NATO allies even before they joined the EU. The geopolitical and security arguments for European unity are overwhelming, and there can be no united Europe without Hungary and Poland.

But all of us, and in particular the peoples of Hungary and Poland, must remember that NATO, like the EU, was founded on the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. A government that flouts those principles jeopardizes the coherence and solidarity of the alliance. It is therefore vital that the United States and other NATO allies speak out now and insist that functioning democratic checks and balances are safeguarded. It would be unimaginable for NATO heads of state to go ahead with their planned leadership summit in Warsaw in June if Poland remains in its constitutional crisis, with the government disregarding the rule of law and the opinion of a respected international body.

Hungarians and Poles must be reminded that Russian President Vladimir Putin is actively attempting to divide and weaken the EU and NATO. If Europe is to face down aggression from the Kremlin, it is essential that Poland and Hungary adhere to these groups’ fundamental values and principles.

But it is also necessary that the EU itself develop a more comprehensive mechanism for safeguarding the rule of law within the Union. The EU has mechanisms to regulate economic policies, safeguard the environment, and police the Single Market. But Europe has always been much more than an economic project; it is also a union of values, which no member can be allowed to repudiate without consequence.

Governments are created and fall apart, and politicians come and go; but democratic institutions should be spared from political interference. The sad reality is that, were they to apply for EU membership today, neither Hungary nor Poland would be admitted. Their people should weigh carefully what that means. 

Their current leaders claim to be defending national interests. But is it really in their countries’ interest to be sidelined by the US, NATO, and the rest of Europe?

Note EU-Digest: Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE) in the European Parliament. 

NATO's Planned June Leadership in June should be cancelled if Hungary and Poland  both continue to obstruct  the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law on which not only the EU was founded but also the NATO.

EU-Digest

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

EU UNITY required as Brussels tragedy strikes at the heart of an already fragile European Union - by E. Reguky and M. Mackinnon

United we stand divided we fall

This week’s bombings in Brussels shattered the peace, and the sense of self-confidence, in the heart of the European Union. The Islamic State militants who carried them out may yet achieve a much larger goal: speeding the breakup of the 28-country bloc that is the grandest geopolitical project since the Second World War.

Even before the massacre, the EU – based on lofty ideals about the free movement of people, money and ideas – was reeling from a seemingly endless series of body blows. There was the refugee crisis, the spectre of Britain voting to leave and the rise of parties of extreme right and left, movements united only by their anti-EU positions. All these problems were exacerbated by Tuesday’s bloodshed.

Throw in the continent’s lingering economic malaise – symbolized by shocking jobless rates in Mediterranean countries – and an institution that was lauded just four years ago with a Nobel Peace Prize for its role in maintaining stability in Europe seems at genuine risk of falling apart.

That reality is just starting to sink into the institutional, clubby atmosphere of Brussels, a world of expense accounts, black BMWs and cushy high-paying jobs. Samir Benelcaid, a Belgian radio talk-show host who broadcasts in French and Arabic, said “people in Brussels didn’t really worry about the future of the EU” even though they were involved in shaping it.

The mentality is starting to change since this week’s bombings. “My own view is that Europe is falling down,” Mr. Benelcaid said. “The EU is facing so many issues with no responses, like migration, terrorism, unemployment. They give billions and billions of euros to young people for jobs formation and there are no results.”

The questions facing the EU post-Brussels are whether the bloc is just one, or perhaps two, more blows away from shattering – and whether the threat of disintegration will persuade the EU’s leaders and citizens that their union is worth saving.

Read more: Brussels tragedy strikes at the heart of an already fragile European Union - The Globe and Mail

Unity and Integration: Let's hear it for the US - the EU still has a long way to go on this - by RM

UNITY IS WHAT COUNTS

Yes indeed -This time let's hear it for the US. 

To those of you who are sometimes critical of the US (including myself) it must also be noted there are still quite a few positive things happening there

This in spite of the steady progress made by Corporate America to get an ever stronger grip on the US political system and economic environment.

 Here is one of the developments that I believe is quite positive.

Even though not everyone might be impressed by the Presidential candidates running for office to replace President Obama, what is impressive, on the other hand, is that among the candidates running for the Presidency are, a woman, two Cuban Americans, a Socialist and a Fascist.

All hoping to replace a black President, with a Muslim father from Nigeria and a Christian mother from Kansas, USA

In a way, as Europeans, we can certainly learn from that, if we ever want to overcome our rampant religious, racial and cultural phobias, and achieve real unity.


EU-Digest

Brussels Attack - Inadequate security - live updates: manhunt under way for airport suspect – by M.Weaver, H Siddique, R. Jalab

• There were several terrorist attacks this morning: two explosions in Zaventem and one in Maalbeck, which many killed and wounded.
• Two of the three men in the CCTV photo “very likely committed a suicide attack.’
• Van Leeuw confirmed that there is an active manhunt underway for the third man seen in CCTV footage at Zaventem airport dressed in white.
• Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack through its media wing, but it was still “too early to make a direct connection between the attacks in Paris [in November] and today’s attacks”, Van Leeuw said. Isis’s claim of responsibility has not yet been formally verified, he said.
• There are several raids under way across the country, but Van Leeuw warned of the risks of reporting details of active operations.
• Witnesses are currently being questioned, with more were being sought.
• Several explosions were heard at the airport after the initial two blasts, but these were controlled detonations by security forces, Van Leeuw said, before warning that there may yet be more controlled detonations of suspect packages.
• And with that, Van Leeuw declined to give any further information so as not to affect the ongoing investigations.

Note EU-Digest: It is remarkable how inadequately many European airports and train stations are protected . With a few exceptions,  there are no baggage controls or security gates/checks at most of the entrances into main airports terminals or train stations. European airports which have train stops below the airport or main train terminals usually do not have security checks for passengers and their luggage going into the main terminal. It is a disaster waiting to happen and the EU and local governments  better take immediate action to avoid even more of these horrible events.

 Read more: Brussels attacks: manhunt under way for airport suspect – live updates | World news | The Guardian

Greece: Migrant crisis: Greece needs EU help to avoid chaos, says Merkel

Austria and several Balkan countries have introduced restrictions stranding migrants in Greece.

Mrs Merkel said EU nations had not battled to keep Greece in the euro just to leave it "in the lurch".

She also defended her decision to open German borders to migrants, despite a resulting slump in her popularity.

More than one million people arrived to claim asylum last year, sparking opposition within her governing coalition  and a rise in far-right extremism.

But speaking on Germany's ARD television, Mrs Merkel said she had no "Plan B" and would not change course, rejecting a proposed limit on migration.

In the coming weeks she faces a major test when voters go to the polls in three German states.

On Greece she said: "Do you seriously believe that all the euro states that last year fought all the way to keep Greece in the eurozone, and we were the strictest, can one year later allow Greece to, in a way, plunge into chaos?"

Greece is the main entry point for migrants arriving in Europe, and was infuriated after a group of countries led by Austria installed controls.

It recalled its ambassador to Austria after the group held talks but did not invite Greece.

A key meeting is scheduled on 7 March between EU members and Turkey and a further summit due later that month.

Read more: Migrant crisis: Greece needs EU help to avoid chaos, says Merkel - BBC News

European Unity: The only plan B for Europe is rebuilding power for change - by Lorenzo Marsili

Europeans today are caught between a failing and undemocratic EU and equally failing and undemocratic national states. As Yanis Varoufakis prepares to launch a new movement for the democratisation of the EU, what’s the way out of the impasse?

There is no need to believe, with George Soros, that the EU is on the verge of collapse to believe that it is on the verge of irrelevance. Becoming little more than a dysfunctional common market shunned by its citizens and promoting tensions and antagonisms between states and between people.There is no Plan A for Europe. Mild adjustments to the status quo - the Juncker investment plan, the youth guarantee, additional fiscal leeway of a few decimals points or a banking union already surpassed by history - are unable to seriously address the historical challenges banging at our doors each day.

Plans for increased integration of parts of the European Union get regularly touted. There are some grounds to being diffident of such plans. Any deepening of integration risks in fact reinforcing the undemocratic nature of a Union of financial rules deprived of democratic accountability.

At the same time there is no viable national Plan B either. There is no space for political emancipation through a more or less harmonious abandonment of the European Union. The sirens of nationalism - be they on the right or on the left - sing a song of destitution and disempowerment.

Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to states or to institutions. Too often is this forgotten. Popular sovereignty is not going to be recuperated by the construction of micro-nations barricading and barking against flows of people and of capital but ultimately at the mercy of decisions taken elsewhere. There is no return to the golden age of the Bretton Woods agreements, when financial capital could be trapped within national boundaries for an emancipatory vision of “capitalism in one country”. Today, national boundaries can only trap refugees escaping war. Their invocation plays squarely into the hands of the far-right.

Recent years have marked a watershed in a post-1989 world-view characterised by talk of the end of history and of a third way of non-conflictual management. This is evident in the return of a political rhetoric that dares put into question the fundamentals of our economic and democratic system - from Sanders to Corbyn via Spain and Portugal. While, less promisingly, it is equally evident in the rise of a new far-right in Hungary, Croatia, Poland, and France.

One thing is for sure. This is no longer the time for the status quo. And that means relinquishing despondency and melancholy and rebuilding the ambition for root-and-branch change - at all levels.

We need to stop portraying the EU as an all-powerful behemoth impeding any real change at national level. 

This rhetoric is false and only benefits supporters of the status quo. What we lack is the capacity for articulating and promoting a new vision for all those policies over which national sovereignty makes sense. Ambitious plans for income redistribution, fighting privations and the protection of the commons, fair integration of migrants, tax justice, fair and free access to education for all, and more. In this sense, the campaign of Bernie Sanders is inspiring. 

Failure to achieve progressive national policies is not due to the EU. It is due to the incapacity of the progressive field to win popular consent. I have much sympathy for Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Oskar Lafontaine, and other old left leaders who met recently in Paris to expound a Plan B for Europe. But I often feel their attacks on the EU have more to do with justifying their political failure nationally than opening up a new field of action for their countries.

At the European level, ambition means returning Europe to being the place where we can regain power to define all that is no longer possible at the national level. Not because the EU impedes it, but because on certain issues medium-sized nations no longer have a say.

Europe is the only space large enough to be able to rein in the rule of financial capital, forcefully addressing the scandal of 62 people in control of half of global wealth. It is the only space where it will be possible to free Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and provide a new technological infrastructure free of surveillance. Where a new ecological understanding of development can be fostered and forced on the rest of the world through commercial treaties based on climate justice and not competition to the bottom. Or, again, where we can nurture a multipolar alternative to US militarism and the rising nationalisms - often with an ethnic basis - of many emerging powers.

United We stand Divided  We Fall

It is the capacity to decide through political struggle how to tackle systemic and historical issues such as these that popular sovereignty should really be about.

Until today European parties have failed to articulate and organise a convincing way out of our multiple crises. National parties have hidden behind unpronounceable acronyms at the European level - who knows the meaning of GUE/NGL? - creating umbrella-groups where they individually maintain their feeble autonomy and collectively maintain their tragic impotence.

A genuine multi-level political force  - and not necessarily a political party as traditionally understood - is long overdue. A transnational coordination summing up the plurality of national forces into a single and recognisable European political actor capable of campaigning and organising over all those issues that require European-level action. 

We have an example of this multi-level dynamic – albeit limited at the national level – in Spain. Where a clearly Catalan force such as the list headed by Ada Colau participates, at state level, in a political project that is able to act as a national political subject in its own right.

Rebuilding power for change ultimately means rebuilding ambition and innovating political practices. Beyond sterile arguments over the benefits of an independent nation-state or of a united Europe, what we should really be talking about is how to organise to transform both.

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

EU - Not all is bad: 5 great laws the EU nailed down in 2015 for its citizens

Divided we fail, United we gain

The EU is probably the most popular scapegoat for politicians. For some, it is a symbol of neo-liberal economic politics, for others, a bureaucratic nightmare that issues self-preserving legislation at a record pace.

David Cameron and the Christian Social Union even want to introduce a national veto, illustrating the trust that Brussels has haemorrhaged in "certain circles".

But not all is bad, As a matter of fact - if we did not have the EU, things could be quite awful for all of us, as we would not have any more controls over corporate manipulations, affecting our daily life, and even the food we eat. Also, local government's hanky panky in making "under-the-table" tax deals with multi-national corporations, already quite a problem, would probably go completely out of control.

1)  Every year, around 30,000 people are killed in traffic accidents on European roads. New EU legislation will require car manufacturers to build their vehicles with devices that automatically notify the emergency services in the event of an accident.

2) Use of Internet Data and privacy laws: EU data-protection reform comes into force in the spring and is implemented by member states over the next two years. Companies like Google and Facebook will now have to provide clear terms and conditions, with understandable symbols. In this way, citizens will have more useful information that will let them decide what information they want to make available. "Simple symbols will make it clear for everyone what companies can and cannot do with your data," said MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens), rapporteur for the data protection directive.

3)  Booking holidays and weekend breaks on the web continues to increase in popularity. Travel agents and providers have recognised this trend and have started to link their flight deals to car rentals, hotels and other deals. The total cost of the package being bought is not always clear to the consumer and there is sometimes a lack of protection.

Come the spring, new rules will mean that such offers are classed as package holidays. That means that consumers will be better protected. A standard 14-day return policy will be guaranteed and there will be more transparency and comparative deals on offer. If travel providers go bankrupt, then customers will always be paid back their money.

4) Banks often like to keep their customers in the dark about fees and Brussels has moved to make that a thing of the past. New legislation will now mean that customers will be given more clear information about the fees charged when making purchases with credit cards. The maximum charge for credit cards will be 0.3% of the value of the transaction and the maximum for debit cards will be 0.2%.. You are encouraged to question your banks about their charges and if you don't like what they tell you contact the European Ombudsman.

5) In the EU, around 100 billion plastic bags are used annually, about 8 billion of which end up being carelessly dumped in the oceans, where they have a huge impact on the environment and eco-systems. "In the North Sea, 94% of birds' stomachs contain plastic," reported the European Commission.

Brussels decided in 2015 to make the member states massively reduce their production and use of plastic bags, giving the 28 countries the choice of binding targets or pricing. EU states were given the choice of either ensuring that no plastic bags are given away free by 31 December 2018 or reaching the goals of 90 bags maximum per person per year by 2019 and 40 bags maximum by 2025.

Divided we fail, United we gain .

EU-Digest

EU Migrant crisis: EU border security becomes new mantra -by Laurence Peter

It is often said that crises in the EU give an impetus for further integration - "more Europe".

There was a new example of that at this week's Brussels summit.

EU leaders agreed on the need for a new "European Border and Coast Guard", with greater powers and resources than the current Frontex border agency.

The European Commission stressed that the new force would not usurp the authority of national border staff - it would work alongside them.

Controversially, however, if a member state fails in its duty to protect the EU's external borders, during an emergency, the Commission could deploy EU guards without needing the state's permission.

And part of the guards' remit would be to send failed asylum seekers back - though currently such "returns" are handled by national forces.

 Read more: Migrant crisis: EU border security becomes new mantra - BBC News

EU’s Fate After Paris: A Dark Scenario - by Daniel Stelte

The EU: United we stand divided  we will fail

The terrorist attacks from Paris, inhuman and brutal, serve as an accelerant for already ongoing processes that have been weakening the European Union’s bonds.

Now they combine in a dangerous mixture and react with each other:

• The “third world war”, as labeled by the pope, with radical Islam, which is intensifying for years and in which peaceful solution seems more and more utopian.
• The wave of refugees flowing into Europe, trying to escape war, suppression and poverty.
• A depressing lack of cultural will for self-defense of the West, serving like an invitation to intolerant people to become even more intolerant.
• A European Union that shows more and more that it is not build on shared values but on the generation of economic gains and prosperity. Once Union stops being financially beneficial politicians come under pressure to explain the benefits to their national electorates.
• European governments not sticking to agreements and rules. Declaring themselves incapable of returning to the order of law.
• Governments and private sectors having lived beyond their financial means for years, unable to deal with the hefty debt load and unfunded promises for retirement and health care of an aging society.
• European leaders who have instead of addressing these issues and the ongoing Euro crisis heads on have played for time – without making use of this time.

All of this – and the list is not complete – is now mixing and reinforcing each other.

Note EU-Digest:  Only unity in purpose and joint European action can overcome the dangers that lie ahead.  If the EU breaks up the enemy, which is not only terrorism as such, but also corporate greed and manipulation, will slowly but surely pick away and destroy democracy and liberty individually in each European state without mercy. The EU is worth fighting for !

Read more: EU’s Fate After Paris: A Dark Scenario - The Globalist

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 

Making NATO defunct: Is EU Army intended to reduce US influence in Europe?

An EU Defense Force? Why not.

An EU military force is being justified as protection from Russia, but it may also be a way of reducing US influence as the EU and Germany come to loggerheads with the US and NATO over Ukraine.

While speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the time has come for the creation of a unified EU military force. Juncker used rhetoric about “defending the values of the European Union” and nuanced anti-Russian polemics to promote the creation of European army, which would convey a message to Moscow.
 
The polemics and arguments for an EU Army may be based around Russia, but the idea is really directed against the US. The underlying story here is the tensions that are developing between the US, on one side, and the EU and Germany, on the other side. This is why Germany reacted enthusiastically to the proposal, putting its support behind a joint EU armed force.

Previously, the EU military force was seriously mulled over was during the buildup to the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met to discuss it as an alternative to US-dominated NATO. The idea has been resurrected again under similar circumstances.

In 2003, the friction was over the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2015, it is because of the mounting friction between Germany and the US over the crisis in Ukraine.

Franco-German differences with the US began to emerge after Tony Blinken, US President Barak Obama’s former Deputy National Security Advisor and current Deputy Secretary of State and the number two diplomat at the US Department of State, announced that the Pentagon was going to send arms into Ukraine at a hearing of the US Congress about his nomination, that was held on November 19, 2014.

As the Fiscal Times put it, “Washington treated Russia and the Europeans to a one-two punch when it revealed its thinking about arming Ukraine.”

Realizing that things could escalate out of control, the French and German response was to initiate a peace offence through diplomatic talks that would eventually lead to a new ceasefire agreement in Minsk, Belarus under the “Normandy Format” consisting of the representatives of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine.

Pessimists may argue that France and Germany opted for diplomacy in February 2015, because the rebels in East Ukraine or Novorossiya, as they call it, were beating Kiev’s forces. In other words, the primary motivation of diplomacy was to save the government in Kiev from collapsing without a fair settlement in the East. This may be true to an extent, but the Franco-German pair also does not want to see Europe turned into an inferno that reduces everyone in it to ashes.

Note EU-Digest: NATO was a good thing after the second world war but seems outdated today and dragging Europeans into US military adventures outside Europe. A EU conscript military would probably also be helpful in the unification process of Europe. As long as they call it a defense force meant soly to defend the territory of the the EU I would be for it.

Read more: Making NATO defunct: Is EU Army intended to reduce US influence in Europe? — RT Op-Edge

The future of Europe - Navel Staring European Politicians - Mrs Merkel the only exception with vision

Mrs. Merkel - a true European visionary with political skills

An Observer editorial notes: "Seventy years after the founders of modern Europe set out to bring stability, unity and prosperity to a war-ravaged continent, Europe and its principal political manifestation, the European Union, face a renewed, potentially defining struggle against the re-energised forces of internal division and fragmentation and external hostility and encroachment.

The scale of this challenge has yet to be fully appreciated. Its outcome is wholly uncertain. In consequence, 2015 may prove a fateful year for all the peoples of Europe.

The challenge comprises many elements, chief of which is whether the politics of austerity will be replaced by a more flexible, people-friendly economic regimen. Austerity, mainly in the form of public spending cuts and attempted deficit reduction, has wrought huge human and social damage. One key measure of pain is unemployment. In Spain, joblessness stands at around 23%. In Greece, the figure is 25%. In some areas of France and Italy, youth unemployment topped 40% at its highest point. Across the EU in 2013, 26 million people were unemployed, or one in eight of all workers. Many millions more are underemployed.

Austerity has caused tremendous political as well as social strain. The tough line dictated by chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who will arrive in London this week, is increasingly resented and there are clear signs of push-back. France’s new prime minister, Manuel Valls, introduced a €30bn reform package designed to boost business and jobs. His boss, President François Hollande, an old-school socialist, openly reviles Merkel’s “neoliberal” policy and its main underpinning, the European stability pact governing national budgets.

“To reform is to affirm our priorities, while refusing austerity,” Valls declared. Another newcomer, Italian premier Matteo Renzi, described as “Merkel’s most dangerous rival”, also links structural reform to a loosening of EU rules, notably Merkel’s holy grail, the 2012 fiscal pact. In November, both countries won budget reprieves from the European commission.

Still the only European leader who can credibly claim international statesman stature, Merkel, who is coming to London on Wednesday for talks with David Cameron on a range of issues, including the European economy, faces increasing criticism at home, not least from her centre-left vice-chancellor and coalition partner, Sigmar Gabriel. He argues the rise of right- and leftwing populism across Europe can only be checked by rapid economic improvements.


Nor can Merkel count on useful support from the new European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, or, more surprisingly, from Britain’s government, fellow champion of austerity and no friend to Hollande. In more skilful hands, David Cameron’s calls for EU reform might have meshed well with German priorities for sound money and stability, but Cameron has recklessly squandered European alliances and opportunities. In any case, he may soon be out of office.

While recent indicators suggest the worst of the recession is over, the full extent of the political fallout at grassroots level across Europe is only now becoming apparent. Elections this year in Greece, Spain, the UK, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Portugal and Estonia will provide further proof of the fragmentation of postwar consensus politics as erstwhile minority parties come to the fore.

In Britain, Ukip, the Greens and the Scottish Nationalists are aiming to usurp the traditional centre-left and centre-right parties. Likewise in Greece and Spain, it seems the centre cannot hold against a surge in support for the populist, anti-austerity leftwing insurgents of Syriza and Podemos respectively. In Sweden, the two mainstream parties, desperate to keep the far-right Sweden Democrats out of government, conspired to form a Merkel-style grand coalition, thereby effectively denying voters real choice. Finland faces a similar dilemma over its hard-right, anti-immigrant party.

Last year’s European parliament elections revealed unprecedented, pan-European dissatisfaction with politics as usual, but Brussels took scant notice, installing Juncker, a quintessential establishment figure, and creating a centrist coalition in parliament. Out of touch hardly describes such complacent behaviour. The significance of the rise of Europe’s new parties can no longer be denied, nor can they be dismissed as mere, temporary protest movements.

Yet Europe’s new politics, organic in nature and fast evolving, cannot be easily quantified or defined. Some, such as the Pegida demonstrators in Germany, are motivated by racist and anti-Muslim views. Merkel was entirely right last week to condemn them. But a new poll showed one in eight Germans sympathises with Pegida. Such views have a more pernicious, formal presence on Germany’s political stage in the shape of the anti-euro, anti-foreigner Alternative für Deutschland, which is eclipsing the old Free Democrats in the way Ukip may eclipse Britain’s Liberal Democrats.

In each country, new parties produce new imponderables. In Greece, for example, the growth of leftwing radicalism is in part a response to the advancing neo-Nazis of Golden Dawn. In the case of some of Europe’s secessionists, meanwhile, self-determination and economic justice have sometimes been confused with an unattractive, exclusionary nationalism. There is one constant: everywhere, it seems, immigration is an issue of concern.

The overall effect of these powerful and often conflicting currents is plain: in prospect is an unstable landscape of weak and fragile national governments, escalating friction over EU policies, intensifying north-south eurozone strains and a growing inability to present a united European front to the world.

A united front is required more than ever, as Europe faces the triple challenge of mass movements of people, Russian aggression and Islamist extremism. Almost alone among Europe’s leaders, Merkel continues bravely to make the case for accepting refugees from conflict in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. But as the plight of asylum-seekers trapped on the Ezadeen, which arrived in Italy yesterday, again demonstrated, this is an enormous international problem.

Most European states, including Britain, have not begun to face up to their responsibilities in dealing with mass migration and tackling the roots of the religious extremism that often causes displacement.
After Vladimir Putin dismembered a European country by annexing Crimea,

 Europe enters 2015 lacking certainty, for the first time since the cold war, that its borders are secure. It was left to Merkel, again, to point out in November that Putin’s attempt to re-establish Soviet-era spheres of influence affects not only Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, but countries much closer to Europe’s heart, such as Serbia and Bosnia, and EU members Hungary and Slovakia.

Russia’s expansionist and anti-democratic outlook recalls the worst aspects of the legacy Europe fought to overcome after 1945. The struggle for a Europe whole, prosperous and free has now returned with a vengeance."

EU-Digest