EU-US Relations: Will the EU-US relationship ever be the same again? by Rolf Mützenich

On 9 November 2016, the unthinkable happened: Donald Trump was elected 45th President of the United States of America. Since then the US has not only lived up to the worst anti-American clichés touted by the extremes of Left and Right – it has surpassed them. A year of ‘America First’ has put a serious strain on ties between the US and its European allies. But is the relationship really in crisis?

Let’s start with the positives. The US president may have offended numerous heads of state and government, but he hasn’t (yet) provoked a war. At home, Trump has only managed to push two major projects through Congress: a long-anticipated tax overhaul and the appointment of the conservative Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, it seems America’s famed system of ‘checks and balances’ is still functioning pretty well – especially when compared with the creeping authoritarianism we see in some EU member states such as Hungary and Poland. It’s no Russia or China either.

Following Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, a number of US states created a ‘Climate Alliance’ committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Several American cities are offering refuge and support to immigrants from Latin America facing deportation. US courts have blocked plans preventing transsexuals from joining the military, and knocked down three attempts to ban Muslims from certain countries from entering the US. (The Supreme Court has since reinstated the ban.)
 
Trump’s efforts to do away with ex-president Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms have failed. Plans to build a wall along the Mexican border have also come to nothing. Encouragingly, the US Department of Justice appointed Robert Mueller to oversee an FBI investigation into the president’s Russian connections and those of his entourage. So despite countless presidential tweets attacking the system, the separation of powers is still working.

A joint European security and defence policy is long overdue, and PESCO is just the latest in a long list of initiatives and experiments. As we have seen, Europe is highly inefficient when it comes to defence spending. Much work is needlessly repeated: the EU has 17 types of tank, 29 types of frigates and destroyers, and 20 types of fighter jets. Procedures for joint missions are complex, the financing arrangements risky.

PESCO is a first step in the right direction. It doesn’t herald the ‘mega-army’ some have predicted. Rather it puts forward an ambitious aim of cooperating intelligently and boosting military capabilities by avoiding unnecessary duplication and using limited resources more effectively.

This includes the establishment of a joint European Defence Fund (EDF) of €500 million; the European Defence Agency, founded in 2004; and the creation of smaller EU battlegroups (military units) to respond to and prevent crises. If successful, PESCO will represent a first step towards greater European independence in the area of security policy.

We should also take care to ensure justified criticism of Trump does not lead to defeatism, cynicism, self-righteousness or anti-Americanism. European countries have no other option but to continue working with the Trump administration as best they can, whilst seeking to maintain contact with Congress and work with American politicians who take an interest in Europe, as well as with NGOs and think tanks.

We must do everything in our power to ensure that not only is there life after Donald Trump, but that the project of the ‘West’ still exists. It is also important that the EU, when there is disagreement, stands in unity against Britain and America, the former leading powers on each side of the Atlantic.

We need both: more Europe and more democracy on the one hand, and the preservation of transatlantic foundations for the post-Trump era on the other. Democracies must respond to the advance of authoritarian structures and individuals by democratising their security policy, because democracy and peace are inextricably linked.

We must observe and enforce rules and standards, and we need credible sanctions against those who break them. We need to expand international (criminal) jurisdiction and to strengthen international organisations and the rights of national parliaments and civil society at home and abroad. If Europe is to overcome the significant challenges facing our world, it must involve the authoritarian superpowers of China and Russia.

However, that cannot replace a newly-aligned transatlantic partnership, where Europe and the US stand on an equal footing. Trump is not America and he will not be in power forever. The goal must be to ensure that the next American president does not take office with the western world in ruins.

Read more: Will the EU-US relationship ever be the same again? | International Politics and Society - IPS

Europe – A World-Class Place To Live And Work? -by Juan Menéndez-Valdés

A world-class place to live and work.’ That is how President Juncker described Europe at the summit to formally proclaim the EU Pillar of Social Rights in Gothenburg last month.

And he added: ‘Europe is more than just a single market, more than money … It is about our values and the way we want to live’.

So how do we live? Do the 510 million Europeans across the current 28 Member States really feel that their living conditions are ‘world-class’?

Certainly, many do. But many others still face inequalities and feel excluded or insecure, worry about access to decent housing and jobs and wonder about the future for themselves and their children. This is reflected in growing populist sentiment that seems to reject the Establishment, making the general narrative on Europe appear largely negative.

But, as always, the reality is significantly more complex.

In fact, the last few years have been generally good and the ‘wind is (indeed) back in Europe’s sails’.

The results from the most recent European Quality of Life Survey show overall progress in the areas of quality of life, quality of society and quality of public services. We have seen improvements for many, although from low points following the economic crisis. Indeed, in some cases, the indicators finally display a return to pre-crisis levels – reflecting, in part, the general economic upturn and return to growth across the Member States.

Levels of optimism have risen, and life satisfaction and happiness ratings have remained generally high in most EU countries. Satisfaction with living standards has increased in a majority of Member States and more people can now make ends meet than was the case in 2011.

Trust in national institutions has actually increased across the board and young people in particular show greater trust in other people. The welcome growth in engagement and participation in social and community organisations across Member States and the decline in feelings of social exclusion, which were more prevalent in the downturn, are also signs of a more positive post-crisis environment.

Indeed, perceived tensions in society between poor and rich people, management and workers, old and young persons and men and women, have all declined during the last five years.

Older people indeed fare less well than their younger counterparts, particularly in some central and eastern European countries, and age clearly contributes to decreasing life satisfaction in Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia. In two-thirds of the EU Member States, more than half of respondents also have concerns about their levels of income in old age.

In fact, despite growth that has seen fewer people reporting material hardship compared to five years ago, over half of the population in 11 Member States still say they have difficulties making ends meet.

This is marginally down on the 13 Member States where the majority of people expressed difficulties making ends meet in 2011 , but still more than 2007 levels. As always, the poor suffer most, and the results show that quality of life has improved less for those in lower income groups.

Read the complete report: Europe – A World-Class Place To Live And Work?

Mafia money pollutes the EU economy - by E. Bianchini, M. Castigliani, G.Pipitone, M.Portanova

Major profits from large-scale illegal activities have to be laundered to enter the so-called clean economy.

The money laundering itself is increasingly done by external specialised groups, which take a 5-8 percent cut for the service, Europol, the EU's police agency, says.

When only considering the Italian mafias, a 2016 report by the EU's judicial cooperation agency, Eurojust, notes their infiltration into the legitimate economy in "Spain (particularly favoured by the Italian Camorra), the Netherlands, Romania, France, Germany, and the UK."

They are doing this primarily through "real estate investments and participation in public or private contracts, particularly in the field of construction, public utilities and waste disposal," the report says.

The Transcrime Organized Crime Portfolio (OCP), edited by Paolo Savona and Michele Riccardi, also notes "cases of organised crime investments were found in almost all EU member states (24 out of 28)", predominantly in Italy, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Romania.

Dirty money, the OCP study says, is mostly "in areas with a historically strong presence of organized crime groups (e.g. southern Italy), in border regions, or in areas which may play a crucial role in illicit trafficking (e.g. Andalusia, or Rotterdam and Marseille with their harbours), large urban areas (e.g. London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Berlin) and tourist or coastal areas (e.g. Côte d’Azur, Murcia, Malaga or European capitals).

Southern Spain, for example, attracts dirty money from Italian mafias, Russian criminals and northern European biker gangs.

In recent years, criminal investments focused on "renewable energy, waste collection and management, money transfers, casinos, VLT, slot machines, games and betting".

The cornerstone of the fight against organised crime is undoubtedly an EU directive from 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the EU.

On 7 October 2016, the EU parliament approved the report on the fight against corruption, prepared by an Italian MEP, Laura Ferrara, which partially adopts the work of Alfano's special committee.

The report's 35 pages echoes the same wish-list to the EU commission, that the offence of "criminal association regardless of consummation of criminal ends" should be punishable.
And yet, there has still been very little progress. It's like a broken record.

Read more: Mafia money pollutes the EU economy

Brexit: British Labor Party Leader Corbyn says: UK should pay EU what it owes - Eric Mauric

The UK should pay the EU what it is "legally obliged to pay" when it leaves the bloc, and a judicial dispute resolution system should be put in place to replace the European Court of Justice's authority over the UK, the British opposition leader has said.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party leader, was in Brussels on Thursday (13 July), where he met with EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans and the UK's EU ambassador, Tim Barrow.

Read more: Corbyn: UK should pay EU what it owes

Money Laundering: EU tables new rules to counter money laundering- by Irene Kostaki

The European Commission on December 21 proposed the tightening of controls on cash and precious metals that are transferred to the bloc from non-EU countries.

The proposal is part of the EU’s action plan to cut financing to Islamic State. It comes after the December 19 attack in Berlin in which 12 people were killed when a truck ploughed into a crowd at a busy Christmas market.

Under the new proposals, customs officials in EU member states will be given the powers of checking freight payments via cards and prepaid/debit cards.

This means that anyone carrying more than €10,000 in cash will be required to declare this at customs when entering the EU.

EU officials also said some of the recent attacks in Europe were carried out with limited funds, sometimes sent from outside the EU. These amounts probably originated from criminal activities, such as drug dealing, according to Vera Jourova, the EU Commissioner for Justice.

She presented the Commission’s proposal on freezing terrorists’ financial resources and on confiscating assets – even from those who are only suspected of being connected to criminals.

“There are a lot of new ways of transferring money and not all of those are covered in the EU-US scheme,” Julian King, the Commissioner for the Security Union, told a news conference in Brussels. He also said the Commission will study the impact of a possible EU programme and “report back by next summer”.

Read more: EU tables new rules to counter money laundering

Italian Economy: Italy moves to rescue its banks

On Wednesday, Italy's two houses of parliament approved a government request to increase the public debt by up to 20 billion euros (20.8 billion dollars) to fund a rescue package for ailing banks. It will likely begin by recapitalizing Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

MPS, founded in 1472 and considered the world's oldest lender, is struggling to complete a 5-billion-euro recapitalization by year's end, as required by the European Central Bank after recent stress tests showed it was grossly undercapitalized in view of a heavy burden of billions of euros in uncollectable debts on its books.

MPS was set to announce on Thursday its failure to find sufficient private investment money to bolster its capital base. In the night before Thursday, MPS announced it had been able to collect less than 2.5 billion euros through debt-equity swaps, and that no major investor had responded to its recapitalization bid, which started Monday and was due to close at 2 pm Thursday.

A resolution in the lower Chamber of Deputies, which was in favour of the government's plan, was approved in a 389-134 vote. There were 8 abstentions. A few minutes later, the Senate also gave its go-ahead in a 221-60 vote, with 3 abstentions.

The 20-billion-euro sum "is sufficient" to solve the problems of an Italian banking sector that "is solid, healthy, but with some well-known critical cases with specific characteristics for each," Minister for the Economy and Finanaces, Pier Carlo Padoan, told the Chamber of Deputies.

The money will fund a "precautionary" safety net, and could be used to inject capital into lenders needing to increase their capital buffers, or to reimburse retail savers caught up in the new European Union 'bail-in' rules. Those rules are meant to ensure that private investors - including retail clients - will bear most of the costs of bank bailouts, rather than taxpayers bearing the cost as was the case in the wake of the banking crises that occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial system meltdown.

Read more: Italy moves to rescue its banks | Business | DW.COM | 21.12.2016

The Netherkands: Geert Wilders tweets image of Angela Merkel with blood on her hands but does not point at the real culprits of EU Refugee crises

EU Populists: Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen

Far-right leaders across Europe have accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel of having blood on her hands following Monday's Berlin terror attack.

Not one European politician, however, from the right or left, so far has dared to point their finger at the US Government Middle East Policies as the direct cause of this refugee and terorism disaster in Europe, or demanded that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair be tried as war criminals.   

Instead obsessed out of control Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders  tweeted a provocative photo of Angela Merkel with blood on her hands as he blamed Europe's 'cowardly leaders' for a 'tsunami' of Islamic terrorist attacks. 

In a previous tweet, he wrote: 'They hate and kill us. And nobody protects us. Our leaders betray us. We need a political revolution. And defend our people. 

The leader of the Dutch far-right tweeted a provocative photo of Angela Merkel with blood on her hands as he blamed Europe's 'cowardly leaders' for a 'tsunami' of Islamic terrorist attacks.

Germany's far-right has also blamed Agela Merkel's immigration policy for the Berlin Christmas attacks as the chancellor insisted terrorists will not destroy 'freedom' in the country.

Mrs Merkel has laid white roses at the scene where 12 died after she said she was 'shocked and shaken' by the deadly attack in Berlin. She admitted it would be 'particularly sickening' if the terrorist was an asylum-seeker.

In Britain, the extremist Britain First organisation also claimed Mrs Merkel's immigration policy has put the entire continent at risk.

The party's 'acting leader' Jayda Fransen issued a two-and-a-half minute video for her organisation's followers claiming they had predicted such an attack would happen.

She said: 'After allowing millions of asylum seekers into Europe, Angela Merkel has put every single one of us at risk. There are now millions of people who are able to move freely throughout Europe who want us dead.'

The war in Iraq was the beginning of all this drama and disasters we are facing today. 

Europe has to change its Middle East Policies by stepping away from blindly following the US lead in this area and thereby providing deranged populists politicians like Geert Wilders and others of his kind with the amunition to spout their hate speeches and other nonsense.

EU-DIGEST 

EU: The race for EU membership – with 10 countries still trying to get in-the gate is temporarily closed

Politico reports that the United Kingdom might be trying to check out of the European Union, but there are at least 10 countries keen to be in. There’s a problem though: The EU’s golden age of expansion is over.

Sorry No More Room At The Inn

While national governments would like to ensure political stability in the EU’s neighborhood, they have no appetite to let those countries join before 2025. For some countries, such as Turkey, there’s almost no chance of ever joining. The European Parliament and countries such as Austria are already trying to suspend membership negotiations with Turkey.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

    “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved” — Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

Don’t expect the European Commission to give firm indications about any of this in 2017: The EU promises a policy update only in spring 2018.

Several EU officials POLITICO spoke to suggested that with Brexit and a new budget to negotiate and implement from 2020-2026, the EU simply doesn’t have room on its plate until 2027 to consider new members.

Goran Svilanović, a former Serbian foreign minister, and now head of the Regional Cooperation Council, said he is “very frustrated” by this approach and says that it would be better to “start negotiating. Keep us busy. Help us be successful.”

No country has even turned around a membership application in less than five years (Finland is the current record holder), and for former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslav states, 10-15 years is typical.

If Iceland decided to reapply for EU membership it would immediately shoot to the front of the queue, and if Scotland were to achieve independence, it would not be far behind. The Scottish government is keen. “As part of our response to the EU referendum we are exploring all options to protect Scotland’s relationship with Europe,” a government spokesperson said.

Another potential big member, Ukraine, is realistic about its membership prospects. Given the country’s internal difficulties and the rejection by Dutch voters of the country’s ‘Association Agreement’ with the EU, diplomats say neither it nor the EU are ready for membership. It would in any case be “suicidal” to join the EU while Russia is headed by Vladimir Putin, a senior diplomat told POLITICO.

Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador, said Georgia is in a similar position. “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved,” she said.

THE CANDIDATES

ALBANIA
Not before 2025
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Albania has shown an ability to deliver bipartisan reforms and is “the least screwed-up country” in the Western Balkans, according to a diplomat active in the region. The country largely avoided the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, allowing it distance from the problems of other EU applicants in the region.

Cons: Formal negotiations have not yet started, and corruption and organized crime remain serious problems, according to the European Commission. The Commission has also criticized the politicization of Albania’s courts.

MONTENEGRO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 90 percent

Pros: Montenegro is the richest Western Balkan nation per capita and has shown ongoing willingness to be part of Western institutions, as illustrated by its nearly completed bid for NATO membership.

Cons: Corruption remains “prevalent” and a “serious problem” according to the Commission, and other political and economic progress is moderate. Allowing Montenegro membership without including Serbia would expose the small nation to a security risk.

SERBIA
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Serbia is the biggest of the Western Balkan countries hoping to join the EU, and could be a pro-EU stabilizing force in the region and good neighbor if kept within the EU’s orbit. The Commission has praised Serbia for aligning its legislation with the EU across the board.

Cons: There has been no progress over the past year in fighting corruption. Serbia may also continue refusing to recognize Kosovo unless offered EU membership, which may be tactically clever but breaches the spirit of EU norms.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Not before 2027, possibly much later
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: This multi-ethnic, multi-religion country could one day be a poster child for the EU’s ability to forge unity from diversity. And if the EU membership process can drag Bosnia up to speed with its neighbors, the prize could be a transformed region.

Cons: Not even the citizens of this country can agree on its basis or continued existence. The country’s constitution will also need a dramatic makeover to meet EU fundamental rights and other standards.

KOSOVO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 30 percent

Pros: Kosovo stands to gain strength in numbers and valuable institution-building capacity through the EU membership process, and has already adopted the euro as its currency.

Cons: It is home to a troubled EU rule-of-law mission (which at times has had 2,000 staff members), and due to deep political polarization and ongoing corruption, the journey to EU membership will be a long one. Its sovereignty is not recognized by five EU countries, nor by its biggest neighbor Serbia.

MACEDONIA
Not before 2030
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: The country has fewer internal problems than Bosnia.

Cons: Membership negotiations have been painfully slow. Greece objects to even the name “Macedonia” as it sees this as a threat to the territorial integrity of its own Macedonia region. Macedonia also has numerous disputes with Bulgaria and there are persistent concerns to democracy and rule of law.

GEORGIA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Its government could not be more positive about the EU in its rhetoric. “Georgia has no alternative,” Ambassador Sabanadze told POLITICO. “Georgians want to live in a normal, European-style democracy and they want to safeguard political independence and territorial integrity.”

Cons: Georgia is saddled with its former relationship with Russia, and like Ukraine, faces a frustrated path to EU and NATO membership, independent of the reforms it delivers as part of its membership bid.

MOLDOVA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: Moldova has strong ties, a shared language and a similar culture to its neighbor Romania.

Cons: The small country has a breakaway republic (Transnistria) supported by a Russian military presence, and is the poorest of the prospective EU members. A pro-Russian, anti-EU president was elected last month.

UKRAINE
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Millions of Ukrainians are so committed to moving into the EU’s political and economic orbit they are willing to protest or shed blood. EU links are a means to achieving stability in the post-Soviet era.

Cons: Even a loose “Association Agreement” proved too much for Dutch voters to accept in 2016, and political fears delayed EU government support for visa-free access for Ukrainians into the Schengen area. Its easter regions are war-torn and Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014.

TURKEY
Possible joining date: Not applicable
Chances of joining: 0 percent

Pros: Inclusion of Turkey into Western institutions, and a sign that moderate Islam is welcome at the world’s top tables.

Cons: Turkey has been drifting toward authoritarianism under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with fundamental rule of law and freedom of expression problems. Only a small percentage of the country is geographically in Europe. Some EU institutions such as the Parliament, and governments such as Austria’s, want membership talks suspended.

ICELAND
Not before 2022.
Chances of joining: 100 percent if a reapplication is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: One of the world’s oldest democracies, Iceland boasts a strategic mid-Atlantic location, high education levels and strong cultural links to Europe.

Cons: Iceland has permanent Euroskeptic factions born from concern about protecting the nation’s fishing rights (which would be limited and partially collectivized in the EU), and the fact that it got rich on its own, and doesn’t need the EU to develop.

SCOTLAND
Possible joining date: Five years after applying, meaning not before 2024.
Chances of joining: 90 percent if application is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: An independent Scotland in the EU would be a major prize for European integrationists. Scotland is EU-enthusiastic, with a government spokesperson calling Brexit: “a democratic outrage” against Scottish voters.

Cons: Anything short of Scotland’s full independence from the U.K. might trigger Spain to block Scotland’s bid to avoid setting a precedent for Catalan nationalists.

EU-Digest

Hate Speech: US tech giants not acting fast enough on hate speech, EU charges

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are not acting quickly enough to tackle hate speech, according to the European Commission, which has told the companies to get their act together.

If the Silicon Valley companies do not speed up their response to tackling illegal hate speech on their platforms, they will be be held accountable under European law, the Commission said Sunday.

Back in May, the companies all voluntarily signed up to a code of conduct, in which they promised to remove hate speech within 24 hours of it being posted and to promote counter-narratives. The code arose from concerns about a proliferation of hate speech on the platforms following a spate of terror attacks in Europe and amid the refugee crisis.

Signing the code was an alternative to the EU drawing up laws on the matter. But now the EU Commissioner for Justice, Vera Jourova, has said that the Commission may be forced to enact laws after all, as only 40 percent of posts are being removed within the time frame.

"If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," she told the Financial Times.

Read more: US tech giants not acting fast enough on hate speech, EU charges - CNET

The Brexit Fallout - EU leaders sing from same Brexit hymn sheet - hy Katya Adler

So much said. So little known.

As Europe editor I'm often asked about the EU point of view - but Europe is waiting first and foremost to get a clear idea from Britain as to what kind of Brexit the government definitely wants.

In the meantime, one message alone emanates loud and clear from European capitals and Brussels HQ, centred round an idiom that will forever now be Brexit-linked in my mind.

The words "cherry picking" popped out of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mouth just last week, the same day they were intoned, with charming French accent, by Michel Barnier, the European Commission's Brexit negotiator.

The mantra is that the UK (despite protestations to the contrary by the British foreign secretary) will NOT be allowed to break EU regulations by staying in the European single market while refusing to accept "freedom of movement" - the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK.

"There is no organisation in the world that will let someone say: 'I will follow this rule of yours but I won't follow that one'," Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told me when I interviewed him just now in Stockholm, ahead of an EU leaders' summit.

Cherry-picking is körsbärsplockning in Swedish, by the way.

And Mr Lofven said Britain definitely wouldn't be allowed to indulge in it when talks to thrash out a new EU-UK trade deal begin.
Raw self-interest

Sweden is one of the UK's closest EU allies: it is business-minded, Brussels-sceptic and non-eurozone nations.

Britain is also Sweden's fourth largest trading partner, so a good Brexit deal is in its interest.

So, was there really no wiggle room, I asked. Couldn't the Swedish prime minister push for a favourable deal?

Mr Lofven said he had offered Theresa May to act as a mediator - "play a practical role" as he put it - but, he insisted, the UK would still have to aim for the best deal possible within the boundaries of EU laws.

Otherwise, he said, there would be no European Union, as other countries would head for the exit door too, preferring their own bespoke EU arrangement.

And that is at the heart of European leaders' cherry-picking hymn sheet: not EU-fervour but raw self-interest.

Read more: EU leaders sing from same Brexit hymn sheet - BBC News

France: French foreign minister says Trump's approach to China is 'not clever'

The French foreign minister has described Donald Trump’s approach to China as “not very clever”, warning the US president-elect not to threaten or lecture Beijing as “we do not talk like that to a partner”.

Jean-Marc Ayrault was responding to Trump’s threats of a trade or currency war with China, as well as his surprise decision to speak directly by phone to the Taiwan president, Tsai Ing-wen.

Beijing lodged a complaint over the phone call, which it saw as a breach of the “one China” principle that officially considers the independently governed island to be part of the same single Chinese nation as the mainland.

In an unusual piece of public advice to an incoming US president, Ayrault told TV channel France 2: “Beware of China. It is a great country. There may be disagreements with China, but we do not talk like that to a partner. We must avoid getting into a spiral where things are out of control.

“When China feels challenged on its unity, that is not necessarily very clever. We will have to be very careful, but we can hope as the days go by the new American team has learned enough to manage an uncertain work with more coolness and responsibility.”

Trump stood firm on the issue on Sunday, saying the US did not necessarily have to stick to its longstanding position that Taiwan is part of one China.

By the beginning of this week, the Chinese response became more hardline. On Monday, Beijing warned any individual who threatened China’s interests in Taiwan that it would “lift a rock that would crush his feet”.

On Wednesday, An Fengshan, a spokesman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said a US approach that favoured formal recognition of Taiwan threatened stability in the region.

“Upholding the ‘one China’ principle is the political basis of developing China-US relations, and is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, he said. “If this basis is interfered with or damaged, then the healthy, stable development of China-US relations is out of the question, and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait will be seriously impacted.”

Until now, the French government has made little noise about the election of Trump, as it tries to gauge the extent of his likely influence on foreign policy, including towards Iran and Russia.

Broadly, the view in France is that Trump has little to gain from a downturn in relations with China when so much else needs to be addressed in Europe and the Middle East. French politicians are anxious that Trump does not seek to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and have noticed that China has been publicly advising the US not to do so.

On Monday, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, urged all sides to stick to the six-nation pact agreed last year. Without mentioning the US directly, Wang said: “Maintaining the deal’s continued, comprehensive and effective implementation is the responsibility and common interest of all parties, and should not be impacted by changes in the internal situation of each country.”

Ayrault has a history of speaking his mind, having accused the UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, of lying during the EU referendum campaign. In an interview with CNN during the US presidential election campaign, he described Trump’s foreign policy plans as “very confused”.

On Wednesday, he said the Trump administration would be judged by its deeds, but the US president-elect had selected “an unusual team after an usual election”.

Read more: French foreign minister says Trump's approach to China is 'not clever'

THE TRUMP DOCTRINE: Alliance Between Russia - US? As Tillerson - Putin′s friend becomes Trump′s Secretary of State

He's not even on the job yet, and Rex Tillerson is already facing a stiff headwind: The 64-year-old has no government experience; as the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation he cut business deals with autocrats, even allowing them to pin medals on his chest. Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweeted that he doesn't want a friend of Putin's in the State Department. Senator John McCain of Arizona, also a Republican, criticized Tillerson's close ties to the Kremlin as well. New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez called the decision "absurd." Others will join the chorus of critics. None of this bodes well for the Senate confirmation hearing that the future secretary of state will face. Majority approval seems anything but certain.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has chosen him, and thus chosen to pick yet another fight with his own party. Why?

Both men see foreign policy as a business endeavor. And, to a certain degree it is - especially in the USA. But it is also something more. What about areas in which the USA has nothing to gain financially; for instance, when it comes to defending human rights? Those who are engaged in defending human dignity around the globe generally don't make a lot of friends - especially among dictators. For decades, American secretaries of state have done just that alongside their colleagues in Western Europe. And they have been successful if one considers the growing number of democracies throughout the world.

Note EU-Digest: the EU better start preparing a plan B in case the US cuts off their umbilical cord with the US, on which they have come to rely so heavily.

Read more: Opinion: Rex Tillerson - Putin′s friend and Trump′s secretary of state | Opinion | DW.COM | 13.12.2016

Terrorism: ISIS Fighters Returning From Iraq, Syria May Unleash Europe Attacks: Eoghan Macguir

ISIS may step up attacks in Europe as it loses ground in the Middle East and foreign fighters return to their home countries, a new report from Europol warned Friday.

The continental law enforcement agency said that car bombs, extortion and kidnappings could be employed by networked groups of fighters or lone wolf attackers who have pledged allegiance to the group or have been inspired by it.

However, attacks using guns, knives and vehicles remain more likely given the easier access to such weaponry, according to Europol. Attacks on major infrastructure such as power stations and nuclear facilities also remains unlikely given ISIS' preference for "soft targets," it added.

Note EU-Digest: It is recommended that special security measures are taken at Public gatherings, Educational facilities, Shopping malls, Places of Worship,  Sports and Cultural events. Also, please immediately contact the police if you see suspicious behavior.

Read more: ISIS Fighters Returning From Iraq, Syria May Unleash Europe Attacks: Cops - NBC News

In Scotland, Trump Built a Wall. Then He Sent Residents the Bill - K. Bennhold

President-elect Donald J. Trump has already built a wall — not on the border with Mexico, but on the border of his exclusive golf course in northeastern Scotland, blocking the sea view of local residents who refused to sell their homes.

And then he sent them the bill.

David and Moira Milne had already been threatened with legal action by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who claimed a corner of their garage belonged to him, when they came home from work one day to find his staff building a fence around their garden. Two rows of grown trees went up next, blocking the view. Their water and electricity lines were temporarily cut. And then a bill for about $3,500 arrived in the mail, which, Mr. Milne said, went straight into the trash.

Read more: In Scotland, Trump Built a Wall. Then He Sent Residents the Bill. - The New York Times

EU Healthcare: Bad health: EU buries billions with 550,000 premature deaths due to chronic disease

A joint OECD/European Commission report says chronic diseases and premature deaths cost the EU billions every year. It calls for better prevention policies and improved health care. So what else is new?

Health reports seldom say anything new. There's the obligatory risk factors - smoking, alcohol and obesity - and an equally standard call for better prevention policies and improved healthcare systems. Let's face it: We could all live a bit more healthily.

Such is the mainline in "Health at a Glance: Europe 2016," a joint report launched Wednesday (23.11.2016) by the OECD and the European Commission in Brussels.

But what's striking about this report is the human cost of Europe's failing health.

The report estimates that about 550,065 people of working-age (25-64 years) in the European Union die prematurely from chronic diseases. It could be a heart attack, stroke, diabetes, or a form of cancer. And their dying early, says the report, costs the EU 115 billion euros annually.

Note EU-Digest: another issue not discussed in this report, which certainly must be seen as a part of the problem, is that in some countries, like the Netherlands, where insurance programs have been  privatized and the insurance premium costs have continuously been on the rise for the consumer, people have not been going to the Dr. or hospital for preventive care, mainly because of personal economic reasons.

For the complete report Read more: Bad health: EU buries billions with 550,000 premature deaths due to chronic disease | Science | DW.COM | 23.11.2016

POPULISM: Trump’s dystopia is coming – but it will destroy itself - by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Trump will, inevitably, pull the rug out from under his own feet.

So this is what the victory of Donald Trump means.

It means that the reactionary forces of the far-right are resurgent. Trump’s victory is the latest in a global trend which was previously manifest in Britain’s Brexit vote, which saw Britons vote to get out of the European Union. That itself follows a growing wave of popularity for right-wing extremists across Europe.

It’s no surprise that among the first in Europe to congratulate Trump on taking the White House were far-right leaders like France’s Marine Le Pen and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders.

That is because, as I’ve documented elsewhere, Trump’s advisory team has close ties to Europe’s fascist political parties.

His campaign rhetoric has meant that the forces he rode to victory are hardly a secret.

As the incoming president and commander-in-chief, Trump represents a threat to ethnic, religious and sexual minorities inside the US; to women and women’s rights; to the people of Iraq, Syria and beyond, where he thinks massive aerial bombing and oil-grabbing is the solution; to the environment, because he’s a rabid climate denier who wants to burn all the fossil fuels available everywhere; and to Europe, which he thinks should be broken up (a view he appears to share with his mutual admirer, Vladimir Putin).

But Trump won because more and more people are fed up with what they see as ‘the establishment’. Voters bought into Trump’s rhetoric about ‘corruption’, about being a maverick operating outside the Washington beltway. They believed his promises to shake up power.

Never mind that his ‘vision’ of making America “great again” is shallow, self-contradictory and vacuous. It appeals to so many because since the 2008 financial crash, and the convergence of economic, energy, and environmental crises that have escalated since then, it is clear to most people that business-as-usual isn’t working.

The problem is that there no alternative.

Faced with the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who of all the candidates received by far the most campaign funding from Wall Street, Trump won by playing up the fact that he is not part of the establishment two-party machinery.

Neither was Adolf Hitler.

It also proves that it’s only a matter of time before the self-serving fantasy he has woven to win the White House unravels. Trump will, inevitably, pull the rug out from under his own feet.

Representing the most predatory, machoistic, egoistic dimensions of what is politically possible, Trump’s efforts to follow through with the outlandish, destructive policies he has proposed throughout his campaign will not make America great again.

They will hurt America, and they will hurt all of humanity, and they will hurt planet earth. They will do so because Trump does not represent any sort of alternative at all, but merely a more regressive, aggressive version of business-as-usual.

And the more Trump, in his raving glory, does so, the quicker America, the world and humanity will wake up to the folly of what he stands for.

In the meantime, we must raise our voices together and louder than ever in the fight for fairer, cleaner, safer and more inclusive societies for all. 

Read more: Trump’s dystopia is coming – but it will destroy itself | openDemocracy

USA: Trump-Led Thaw Between Russia, US to Undermine EU Unanimity Over Sanctions

United States President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider the possibility of lifting anti-Russian sanctions, but provided no further details.

 At the same time, Morgan Stanley estimated a 35 percent chance of Washington lifting sanctions against Moscow in the coming two years.

According to the bank, Trump’s presidency will result in easing sanctions against Russian companies and individuals. Meanwhile, the European Union is now concerned over a possible thaw between Russia and the US because this will create obstacles for Brussels’ policy of sanctions.

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly said he wanted to normalize ties with Russia. After the election, he confirmed he wants a "good relationship" with Moscow. Russian markets reacted to Trump’s victory more positively than other global stocks, on expectations of an improvement in bilateral economic ties between Russia and the US.

Read more: Sputnik

Tony Blair: If Brexit is a disaster we must have right to change our mind says Tony Blair -

Britain hurtles towards a triggering of Article 50 next March, with no clear idea of what life outside the EU, and especially outside the European single market, really looks like.

Nonetheless, any hint of braking or slowing down is condemned in some quarters as a treasonous denial of the will of the people.

The British people "have spoken", we are reminded.

That is true but no reason for us now to shut up and go along with whatever version of Brexit we end up negotiating, good or bad. We can carry on speaking and debating. This is democracy.

 Our "will" is not some immutable, semi-hallowed expression of opinion that, once given, cannot be changed or adjusted irrespective of facts which emerge that might make a reasonable person doubt the wisdom of the course we have taken.

First, let us deal with the argument that following the vote of June 23 we can choose between different types of Brexit - not that the choice is ours alone because it depends also on our European partners - but that we cannot choose no Brexit

We have to respect that people voted as they did. But we have to believe in the people's innate sense, that they're also open to a better argument in the light of the facts as they come to light.

The world is dangerous right now, not simply for all the conventional reasons. It is dangerous because Western politics is at risk of losing its way and its character.

Just look at this presidential election in the US to see it.

Brexit has always meant more than Brexit.

So I come back to the central point. Keep our options fully open.
Above all, stay firm. We're a sovereign people. We can make up our mind; and we can change our mind. And whether we do, is up to us.

EU-Digest

The US Corporate Press: "The Fable Of Good and Bad Deaths in the Middle East

Note how differently The New York Times prepares the American public for civilian casualties from the new U.S.-backed Iraqi government assault on the city of Mosul to free it from the Islamic State, compared to the unrelenting condemnation of the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on neighborhoods of east Aleppo held by Al Qaeda.

In the case of Mosul, the million-plus residents are not portrayed as likely victims of American airstrikes and Iraqi government ground assaults, though surely many will die during the offensive. Instead, the civilians are said to be eagerly awaiting liberation from the Islamic State terrorists and their head-chopping brutality.

“Mosul’s residents are hoarding food and furtively scrawling resistance slogans on walls,” writes Times’ veteran war correspondent Rod Nordland about this week’s launch of the U.S.-backed government offensive. “Those forces will fight to enter a city where for weeks the harsh authoritarian rule of the Islamic State … has sought to crack down on a population eager to either escape or rebel, according to interviews with roughly three dozen people from Mosul.

The Times article continues: “Mosul residents chafed under social codes banning smoking and calling for splashing acid on body tattoos, summary executions of perceived opponents, whippings of those who missed prayers or trimmed their beards, and destroying ‘un-Islamic’ historical monuments.”

So, the message is clear: if the inevitable happens and the U.S.-backed offensive kills a number of Mosul’s civilians, including children, The New York Times’ readers have been hardened to accept this “collateral damage” as necessary to free the city from blood-thirsty extremists. The fight to crush these crazies is worth it, even if there are significant numbers of civilians killed in the “cross-fire.”

By contrast, the Times routinely portrays the battle for east Aleppo as simply a case of barbaric Russian and Syrian leaders bombing innocent neighborhoods with no regard for the human cost, operating out of an apparent lust to kill children.

Rather than focusing on Al Qaeda’s harsh rule of east Aleppo, the Times told its readers in late September how to perceive the Russian-Syrian offensive to drive out Al Qaeda and its allies. A Sept. 25 article by Anne Barnard and Somini Sengupta, entitled “Syria and Russia Appear Ready to Scorch Aleppo,” began:

“Make life intolerable and death likely. Open an escape route, or offer a deal to those who leave or surrender. Let people trickle out. Kill whoever stays. Repeat until a deserted cityscape is yours. It is a strategy that both the Syrian government and its Russian allies have long embraced to subdue Syrian rebels, largely by crushing the civilian populations that support them.

“But in the past few days, as hopes for a revived cease-fire have disintegrated at the United Nations, the Syrians and Russians seem to be mobilizing to apply this kill-all-who-resist strategy to the most ambitious target yet: the rebel-held sections of the divided metropolis of Aleppo.”

Again, note how the “rebels” are portrayed as local heroes, rather than a collection of jihadists from both inside and outside Syria fighting under the operational command of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which recently underwent a name change to the Syria Conquest Front. But the name change and the pretense about “moderate” rebels are just more deceptions.

Read more: Consortiumnews – Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

The Netherlands: Dutch Discontent Could Derail General Elections - by Marcel Michelson

The Netherlands is holding general elections in March 2017, the result of which will determine the make-up of the next government.

Mark Rutte, the liberal Prime Minister, is expected to lead his party for the third time and some commentators already expect a third Rutte coalition government but this time possibly not with the PVDA Labour party.

Yet the outcome could be drastically different. The Dutch government and Rutte think they have done a good job and the last annual state budget even contained some presents despite the Dutch’ tight hold on the purse strings.

But the noise in the lowlands is not about how cosy the country is, how nice the purchasing power, how decent the unemployment figures.

It is more about fraud scandals at semi-public institutions, pocket-lining local politicians, sporadic clashes with young Dutch descendants of immigrant families, and the new waves of refugees housed in special complexes all over the country.

The old political system in the Netherlands is falling apart.

For many decades, moderate religious parties in the centre held power even though they had to merge over time to keep the majority.

There were coalitions with either the labour party to the left or the liberals to the right, with a sprinkling of other smaller parties to make up the numbers.

But cooperation is not that easy anymore and the Dutch are not as happy as they seem.

In the wake of late populist politician Pim Fortuyn, shot dead in 2002 by an animal rights activist, Geert Wilders has been garnering a lot of protests votes with his anti-immigration and anti-EU stand.

Wilders has called for a Nexit, Dutch exit from the European Union, after Brexit.

He has been joined in this call by a new party; the Forum for Democracy.

Their leader Thierry Baudet wants more referenda, about the euro for instance and immigration, so that the Dutch citizens are more involved in the political process instead of the four-yearly delegation of power to parliament.

Baudet, and other politicians, are angered that the Dutch government has not implemented the result of a consultative referendum over a treaty with Ukraine.

While less than a third of the Dutch voted in the referendum in April this year, 61 per cent rejected the EU association agreement with Ukraine. The government of Mark Rutte, holding the EU presidency at that time, has so far ignored the result and thereby angered many citizens.

Immigration is also a key issue. While the Netherlands has often prided itself on its tolerance and hospitality, behind the curtains in the living room windows there are now harsher discussions.

On the one hand, Dutch youngsters from immigrant descent are held responsible for petty crimes and proselytism, while on the other hand some descendants of immigrants are demanding the Netherlands to abandon parts of its culture and traditions that hark back to the slave trade.

The annual children’s party of Sinterklaas in December, the Dutch variant on Santa Claus, has turned into an opinion battlefield due to the presence of Black Peter, black-faced helpers. For some, these helpers put the black community in a bad light and remind them of the slavery trade, while for others the blackened-faces are no more than disguises so that the children do not recognise the family members or neighbours who assist Sinterklaas, himself unrecognisable behind a large white beard, long hair and a bishop’s mitre and costume.

Another new party, Denk, is calling for a renewed balance in the Netherlands for all groups of Dutch people, irrespective of their family roots. The founders and leaders of Denk were members of the Labour Party with Turkish ancestors.

A leader of an organisation of Dutch people with Moroccan origins will also present himself on the Denk (“Think” in Dutch) list.

Denk would like better recognition of Palestine, less obstacles to private initiatives for education, Chinese, Arab and Turkish as options in basic education and a national racism register to fight racism.

With the children of the multi-cultural society in the Netherlands calling for mutual understanding and respect and the die-hard Dutch wanting to retreat in the polders behind closed borders, there is hardly a trace left of the “consensus” so dear to Dutch political tradition.

The country once known for its outward-looking attitude and knack for international trade and business seems stuck in an endless search for personal happiness in a cosy cocoon, and increasingly disconnected from the outside world.

Read more: Dutch Discontent Could Derail General Elections - EU And Immigration In Focus