Tag Archives: : BREXIT

Gusst Article: The Special Relationship after Brexit (Beatrice Heuser):

Posted on by

Beatrice Heuser*

web_Trump and Johnson

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, respectively at the helm of the US and the UK, invite caricatures: two shockheaded blonde self-promoters allied against the EU and committed to the revival of narrow selfish nationalism. This is where the similarities stop: one is an American businessman who can hardly string together sentences of more than six words, the other an English establishment journalist-turned-comic-turned-politician with a knack for colorful rhetoric and metaphors. Where will they take the relationship between their countries? If the past is guidance to the future, it is so in two ways: first, to emphasize that everything is flux and changes, and secondly, that there were reasons why certain configurations arose in the past: if they disappear, these configurations should do as well.

First, then, let us remember that the United Kingdom was the USA’s first ever state-enemy. Moreover, the English, the lead nation within that Kingdom, were the oppressors from whose poor governance generations of Irishmen and Scots and Welshmen fled to America. To this day, the villains in Hollywood movies are identified by upper-class English accents.

Second, when the United Kingdom gradually advanced to become the USA’s tacit partner in keeping the world in order, and later America’s ally (in some respects its closest ally), there were reasons. US President Monroe’s Doctrine proclaimed the Western Hemisphere (the Americas) to be America’s chasse gardée which only worked if somebody else kept the Eastern Hemisphere (everything else) in some modicum of order. This presupposed a power that could do so, which the British managed to do, with a lot of bluff, in their world-wide-empire. That condition for partnership is gone.

To prevent ED you should djpaulkom.tv levitra without prescription eat healthy and fresh food and avoid fast food. One of the ways to cure this condition is to use a complement like Provacyl that will help cialis price in canada to change the destructive aftereffects of aging on the libido. tadalafil generic online Basically, it is not chemically addictive but it will be best to take your child to regular chiropractic child care to make sure that your child is strong, healthy and capable of healing itself when health problems arise.For more Click here Chiropractic medicine is widely known for maintaining healthier skin. This medicine contains ‘sildenafil citrate’ discount cialis 20mg as its main ingredient and the dosage of its strength is available in 50 mg, and 100mg pills meant for oral ingestion.

Then, the USA became Britain’s ally in two successive world wars because Britain (partly along with France) was a great power with colonies around the globe. Today, both powers are shorn of all but the last islands of their empires, with the lingering ghosts, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, both more culture clubs than alliances. Indeed, even in the Second World War, Britain’s colonies Australia and New Zealand were forced to turn to the USA for defense support and have relied upon Washington, not London, ever since (a relationship enshrined in the ANZUS Treaty of 1951). In the two world wars, Britain was  France) the major defender of Western Europe until GIs debarked in Europe. Today, Britain’s forces are withdrawing from their long-term deployment in Germany (the British Army of the Rhine) and have been downscaled to the point where Britain’s own military despair of her overstretch. Moreover, the UK is about to withdraw from its unconditional and all-out defense commitments in the Lisbon Treaty, while the NATO Article 5 commitments leave it utterly open to each member what it decides to do in case of an attack on another: protest loudly … or launch its entire nuclear force against the aggressor.

In the two world wars and for a long time after, Britain was America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, the secure base from which American aircraft and later missiles could fly on missions over Europe. The extended reach of aircraft and the development of intercontinental missiles and air- and sea-launched ballistic and cruise missiles has long depressed the value of Britain in this respect. Potential theatres of US operations have moved to the East, and if bases are really needed for frequent shorter-range operations, Britain is too far away from where it all happens.

From the date of its entry into the European Economic Communities (later renamed the EU), the UK was useful to the USA as the defender of an American viewpoint, and the key brake on the development of a European defense organization independent of NATO. With the UK out of the EU, it can no longer stop European initiatives. The French warning that Europe must hedge against an Amereican withdrawal can now be heard more loudly – for which there is, of course, a further reason: not just the muffling of European initiatives, but the alarming noises coming out of the USA itself.

So, just as Britain is losing the last of its assets that once made it so valuable to the US, President Trump is signaling that America’s commitment to NATO might not be eternal. Where since 1949 Britain and France merely provided useful complements to an American guarantor of the security of Western Europe, in the light of a gradual reduction of US forces in Europe since the 1990s, the importance of the two larger military and nuclear powers of Europe, Britain and France, becomes greater than ever. Yet it is just at this juncture that Britain is preparing to withdraw from the EU, instead sending its aircraft carrier to the South China Sea to show solidarity with faraway powers. But the aircraft carrier has no aircraft, substituting US fighter-planes for its own, as those have not yet come off the assembly line.

In short, since outright enmity between Britain and the USA ceased in the early 19th century, Britain has never been of such limited value to the USA as today, when leading advocates of Brexit secretly want to turn their country into something like the 51st state of America, with further reductions in social benefits and social security, with zero-hour employments and one-pound jobs, without statutory sick leave or holidays. Pity only that they can’t tow Britain across the Atlantic. Moreover, the entrepreneurs backing Brexit want to transform the medium-sized country with its 67 million inhabitants and an average per capita GDP of just under € 40 000 into a financial center comparable to the city-state of Singapore with its under 6 million citizens and an average per capita GDP of over € 91 000. Which presupposes that (a) the unemployed steel workers, car manufacturers and miners of the UK can all become bankers and insurance brokers, and (b) that the world needs umpteen millions more bankers and insurance brokers.

For America, this would mean competition for Wall Street, not necessarily something that would be celebrated in Trump Tower. While in the 19th century, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston proclaimed that Britain had no permanent friends but only permanent interests, British diplomats and military men have since the Second World War believed that Britain has no permanent interests other than to keep the USA as permanent ally, and that just about any sacrifice should be made to keep this “special relationship” alive. It remains to be seen if Trump’s gut support for the Brexiteers will survive his realization that in relations between nationalist states, there are no allies, only competitors.

* Prof Beatrice Heuser is an historian and political scientist whose publications include many works on strategy. Currently she holds the chair of International Relations at the University of Glasgow.

Guest Article Brexit: A Divorce Like Few Others

Posted on by

By

Anna Kucirkova*

The medicine is consumed actively to recover the usa discount cialis long lost sexual potency in a person. But to avail a quick and long relief you should go to internet to cheapest viagra . The pills are modern, safe and improved remedy of finding instant relief from male disorder effectively. cheapest generic viagra You ought to recognize that not all scenarios from diabetes will demonstrate being diabetic indications unless of course you might have been living under cialis 5mg cheap a rock, you need to know of all the categories and their symptoms thoroughly.

Even if you’re a casual follower of the news, no doubt over the past couple of years you’ve seen a story or two about Brexit.

Short for Britain Exit, Brexit is the messy divorce between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) that it has been a member of for the better part of 25 years (unofficially it dates back to 1951).

While the vote to break away from a unified Europe won a very narrow passage from British citizens back in 2016, the separation itself has been even more contentious.

Let’s take a closer look at Brexit, and how a small movement to regain a small measure of independence transitioned into a full-on family squabble amongst our European allies.

You’ll want to keep a stiff upper lip for this one.

What is Brexit?

In June of 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Union. In an amazingly close vote, with over 70% of the voting age population turning out, abandoning the EU won, by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.

Isn’t the UK comprised of a few entities? Was it all unanimous?

Yes, it is, and no it was not.

England voted in favor of Brexit – 53.4% to 46.6%. So too did Wales, voting 52.5% versus 47.5%.

Scotland and Northern Ireland, however, went the opposite direction. Scotland overwhelming voted in favor of staying in the EU by a wide margin – 62% to 38%. Northern Ireland was a bit more modest, but still very much in the stay column 55.8% to 44.2%.

How did all of this come about? (Part I)

There is a very long answer going back decades that we could dwell on and on about, and it still would not satisfy what ultimately led the UK to leave the EU in the rearview mirror.

In other words, its very, very complicated.

However, you can connect the dots on a few recent confluences that ultimately drove the UK to where it is today. First though, it’s important to understand what the EU is and its role in Europe.

What is the European Union?

Excellent question.

The EU had its early roots in post-World War Two Europe where there was a willingness among countries devastated by war to start working more closely together. Obviously, the conventional wisdom being nations whose interests align with each other probably won’t go to war.

Unsurprisingly, the EU has avoided major cross-border conflicts since 1945.

Since that time the EU model had several iterations.

The EU as we know it came about with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Since that time it has grown to include 28 member countries, 19 of which share a single currency – the euro.

As it stands today, the EU is a true single market. Goods and services and people and capital have the luxury to move freely between the member nations. There is a parliament that guides political standards over a number of issues including transportation, the environment, and even certain consumer protections.

By now you’re probably saying “that doesn’t sound so bad to me.” Well…

How did all of this come about? Part II

As early as 1975, the UK saw its control over its relationship with European allies start to erode. That was back when the European Economic Community comprised only nine members.

As the EU grew into its current form, a growing number of British citizens (particularly the Conservative Party) began questioning the power it held over its member countries. In some regards, it rendered them unable to make certain decisions for themselves, having to instead defer to the greater EU.

An extended run of prosperity and economic growth masked a lot of these concerns (it also did not hurt to have two pro-EU Prime Ministers in power during this run). For almost two decades, the UK and the EU seemed a harmonious fit.

So what happened?

2008 happened.

The confluence of events we mentioned earlier include the following: the financial crash of 2008, an increasing resentment by many British citizens of larger numbers of migrants entering the UK (mainly from poorer, newly minted Eastern European countries to the EU), and the overall drop in living standards across the country.

Ultimately, those concerns morphed into the UK wanting three things: to be free from EU imposed rules and fees, to once again control the majority of their lawmaking, and to regain full command of their border controls including the direct management of immigration numbers.

This ignited a rise in support for the UK Independence Party, which, you guessed it, wanted out of the EU. The pressure from the group moved the ruling Conservative Party to offer up the EU referendum.

And that’s the short version.

Wow. So what’s happening now? Are the UK and EU really breaking up?

It looks that way, although there remains plenty to sort through and not a ton of time to do it.

In March 2017, current UK Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which outlines the procedures for any country that decides to leave the EU. It provides two years to negotiate an amicable split. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, they can extend the deadline or take the Fleetwood Mac route and go their own way.

That latter part sounds harsh.
That’s because it is.

If there’s no deal, all treaties are rendered null and void, and the UK has to effectively start from scratch when dealing with the EU.

Publically, those in power in the UK have said a deal will get done, though Theresa May has also stated that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” It’s worth noting that the UK government and several agencies are already planning for the clean break, no deal scenario.

Considering the two year period to strike a deal began in March 2017, there are less than five months to go to figure out what to do.

Have any exit plans been put forth?
Yes. The UK hammered out a plan, called the Chequers Plan, that attempted to appeal to a wide range of views within the UK, including those who opposed Brexit.

The significant points include the UK having the authority to negotiate its own trade agreements while presenting a compromise on the trading of goods and application of tariffs.

It also signals for the end of the free movement of people between the UK and EU and offers up a “mobility framework” to govern how people travel between EU nations and the UK.

How was the Chequers Plan received?

Not well. In the UK, two of the lead negotiators for Brexit resigned over it.

The EU flat out rejected it.

To this point, however, Theresa May stands firm that the Chequers plan proves the best compromise for all parties involved.

How has the UK been handling this – economically speaking?

Okay. Their economic fortunes have mirrored that of most other industrialized nations, remaining relatively health even with Brexit deadlines looming.

Their unemployment is at 4%, a 43-year low. Inflation sits at a steady 2.2%. The economy has grown since 2016 – 1.8% in that first year after the vote, then a near identical rate in 2017, and a slower pace of 0.8% for the first part of 2018.

The one negative is that the pound remains weak against both the dollar (down 10%) and the euro (down 10% to 15%).

What about Northern Ireland and Scotland, who voted against Brexit?

Northern Ireland comes with its own set of complications as it shares a 300-plus mile border with EU member the Republic of Ireland.

Sensitive to the regions previous long-standing conflict, the Troubles, both the UK and the EU favor keeping an open border between the Irish. The EU put forth a proposal that would keep Northern Ireland in line with their trade standards, which the UK opposes.

The UK, in turn, suggested a “common rulebook” for how goods maneuver between the entities, setting up an electronic border of sorts. This is part of the larger Chequers plan, which the EU rejected.

A “backstop” plan was also proposed by May as last recourse, which would temporarily keep the UK and EU aligned, trade wise. The EU rejected this as well.

Scotland, two years after the vote, still stands opposed to Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has used rhetoric like “democratically unacceptable” concerning Scotland’s position of being tied to the UK even as they want to stay in the EU.

She’s also requested a referendum on the final Brexit deal and a longer transition period (which we cover below) to account for the needs of opposing groups.

What actually happens if the parties make a deal?

Should a deal be reached, it would first have to be approved by a minimum of 20 EU members that have at least 65% of the EU population.

From there, a 21-month transition period (from March 2019 to December 2020) would go into effect, allowing all involved parties, including businesses, to prepare for a Europe after the official split from the UK. This also leaves extra time to finalize any lingering details.

Also during this timeframe, the UK can make its own trade deals (but they cannot take effect until January 2021), and free movement will continue (fulfilling a request by the EU).

Again, the transition period happens if the UK and EU come to an agreement.

And what if no deal is reached?

As we noted earlier, ties are immediately severed and long-held treaties on an endless array of subjects automatically end. Some in the UK claim that such a break would be a “national disaster” while other claims that language is simple “scaremongering.”

Though we doubt it will be as harsh or as painless as some claim, in reality, nobody’s sure what will happen in the event of a clean break.

If that does come to pass, one can only hope that the UK would at least get to keep the Beatles first issue vinyl collection in the divorce.

* Anna Kurcikova is a Texas-based copywriter working for Connex Digital Marketing. Over the last three years she has specialized in economic and geopolitical affairs. 

Guest Article: George Michael and Brexit A View from the Thames Valley

Posted on by

By Prof. Beatrice Heuser

Overnight, during the Christmas news doldrums, our village became the focus of world attention. For a month ago, Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, better known as George Michael, born in London to a British mother and a Cypriot father, ended his life in his country house on the Thames in the idyllic village of Goring. Following the example of the new ritual of mass mourning which Britain invented at the death of Princess Diana, the access to his house is now strewn with bouquets of flowers in their white plastic wrappers and many very odd donations from balloons and a guitar to T-shirts inscribed “Choose Life”, the motto of an anti-suicide campaign he sponsored. Even now, a month later, fans make their pilgrimage to Goring to pay homage. One wonders whether they cared or even knew as much about the decision they took in the “Brexit” Referendum on 23 June 2016 as about the life of George Michael.

Seven months after the Brexit vote, some of us are still rattled. The outcome is proof that Europeans in different countries have always thought of the European Union in different ways. In Spain and Greece, membership of the EU is seen as a way of escaping the great divides within the country itself, with the Union at the highest, not at the lowest common denominator. Countries that were in Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire – above all France and Germany – had (but do young generations still have?) some emotional identification with this historic heritage that preceded nationalism and frontiers. A (declining?) majority within those countries embrace the narrative that nationalism had bad effects, leading to the creation of barriers and the wars of many centuries. Most continental peoples associate the EU with human rights and a larger, liberating identity, and with a peaceful, civilised way to settle problems.

In Britain, by contrast, most people have never seen European integration in that light. Before or after membership of the European Economic Community (EEC, the forerunner of the EU), they could travel; they still prefer taking the ferry to taking the time-saving Channel Tunnel, and therefore their passage experience is still one of Britain being separate, and passports being controlled, as it has always been. They only identified the “Common Market” with free trade (good) and otherwise see the EU as an alien empire dictating rules and regulations (bad, like the Roman Empire, and unsuccessful attempts to subject England by the Catholic Church through the agency of Philip II of Spain with his Inquisition and the Armada, of Napoleon and Hitler). Against this, England/Britain defended its Freedom – a nice flexible catch-all that throughout European history has expressed anything and everything, and now stands for poorly paid jobs with little social security, and a romance of Britain as part of a seafaring Anglosphere but not of the European Continent.

As an unemployed blue-collar worker in his late 50s said on BBC Radio in early September 2016, he had no hope of finding employment again, and could not afford to pay the medicines for his wife, and had voted for Brexit to “make Britain great again”. Unpack those assumptions: i.e. Britain was great before it joined the EEC in 1973, he would have been employed, and the National Health Service would have paid for all health needs. None of this would have been true. Labour minister Aneurin Bevan already resigned in 1951 when the young NHS was so overstretched that it could not pay for dentures any longer, and Britain joined the EEC because it was economically at rock bottom with high unemployment, labour unrest, and much poverty. But clearly, if this man is anything to go by – and a recent study suggests he is, see https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities – there is a myth prevalent among the British white lower classes of a golden age that was lost when Britain joined “Europe” (never mind geographic and historical facts).

In short, The whole narrative of the Pax Romana and Charlemagne and how the Holy Roman Empire managed most internal conflicts peacefully (until the religious wars) and co-ordinated external defence, and finally settled for religious tolerance, is never taught in British schools, nor all the wonderful things that EU does for ethnic minorities. (For a provocative book written by another fan of the Pax Romana, read Ian Morris’s bestseller War: What is it good for.)

What is incomprehensible unless it is lighting finding the only available conductor is the anti-Polish actions and other displays of xenophobia against EU citizens immediately after Brexit. Back in the early 1980s, with Solidarność and Lech Wałesa, the Poles were every Briton’s darlings. Even in the 1990s, people supported EU and NATO extension because, having guaranteed Poland in 1939, the British and the French felt rather sheepish about their inability to stop the Wehrmacht, and then the Red Army, from overrunning Poland. Everybody talked about the gallant contribution the Poles had made to the RAF and to decrypting Enigma.

Not only does this prevent future problems from occurring, it also saves the man from having to face embarrassment as it can be quite difficult for a man when he comes to know that he is suffering from drug addiction then you can get him treated in an herbal way by consuming the Titanic K2 capsules. cheap levitra on line Failing to hear properly unica-web.com generic uk viagra is also being traced in few men who used it, but the chances are very low. cheap canadian cialis Enhanced testosterone is necessary for improving functioning of reproductive organs. This medicine is the easiest and quickest source for the treatment of viagra on line australia ED in the world. / Erectile dysfunction- the most embarrassing health problem has now targeted to significantly large number of males around the world. The bêtise of the angry white Americans who voted Trump into office seems akin to that characterising the unemployed man quoted above. Some patterns are reminiscent of the 1930s, when nationalism was rampant, and nationalist authoritarian leaders such as Piłsudski admired Hitler and Mussolini, and when Piłsudski’s successors thought they were being clever when they joined in the carving up of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. How do people not understand that a nationalist government of another country is by definition an adversary in a zero-sum game, and that any alliance with it can only be temporary? While democracies upholding human rights should logically co-operate (which the British found so difficult to understand vis-à-vis France in the 1920s and 1930s), nationalist countries by definition are each other’s enemies. What’s so difficult about that?

Any student of the history of European security and the construction of the fragile architecture that gave the Continentals the reassurance that they were covered by nuclear deterrence (to which Britain’s contribution was pivotal, and based on the unconditional mutual guarantee of the Brussels Treaty, now subsumed into the Lisbon Treaty of the EU), without further nuclear proliferation in Europe (!) should be terrified by the possible consequences of withdrawing the British pivot through Brexit. And while so far Putin “only” wants to rebuild the “Union” (so what about the Baltic states, members of NATO and the EU?), l’appetit vient en mangeant. Baltes and Poles are likely to dream about nukes – and probably want a very strong fence or wall. Call in the Israelis or the Chinese.

So when Trump thinks he can “do business with Herr Putin”, to paraphrase Chamberlain in 1938, and when Nigel Farrage and François Fillon and Marine Le Pen and the AfD in Germany and many other European leaders admire Putin (and Erdoğan? Probably…), history is clearly not taught properly to the masses.

In short, things are not looking good for human progress. Another Age of Enlightenment is coming to an end. George Michael did not “Choose Life”, the British did not choose to “Remain” in the EU. The former, a personal tragedy. The latter may become one for the stability of Europe, perhaps for the rest of the world.

 

Beatrice Heuser, who holds the Chair of International Relations at the University of Reading, is the author of (inter alia) Evolution of Strategy (2010), Nuclear Mentalities? (1998), and Western Containment Policies in the Cold War: the Yugoslav Case (1989). Her next publication will be Strategy before Clausewitz (2017).