The Single Market and the UK: A Little Bit of Heaven, A Little Bit of Hell

At the 11th hour of Brexit talks between Theresa May and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday 4th December, a veto mightier than the likes of what Johnson, Gove or Rees-Mogg could ever have dreamt of wielding was cast by ten Northern Irish MPs. The Democratic Unionist leader, Arlene Foster, had rung Theresa May to sabotage her underhand play diverging Northern Ireland from Britain, throwing phase one of the negotiations into disarray.

Indeed, the DUP’s scuppering of May’s promise to the EU of Northern Ireland’s forced ‘regulatory alignment’ averted a political, constitutional and potentially existential crisis in the UK. Not only did this majorly embarrassing event again highlight Theresa May’s incompetency to ‘Strengthen the Union’ — which I’d remind the Right Honourable member was one of the points made in the Lancaster House Speech! — but, taking place before the EU Commissioner President in the EU’s de facto capital, it reopened fresh Brexit-inflicted wounds in the UK’s devolved assemblies.

The heads of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and London Assembly stood in solidarity calling for a nationwide ‘regulatory alignment’. But what does this stupefying jargon mean? And what would the implications be of such ‘regulatory alignment’?

The implications are a Brexit ideologue’s nightmare. As a precursor and fundamental precondition to European Single Market access, ‘regulatory alignment’ euphemistically alludes to the upholding of certain EU quality, procedural and regulatory standards to set a level playing field for economic activity in the EU Single Market. Regulation serves both a functional and bureaucratic purpose; the correction of inefficient markets, and the expansion of technocratic bureaucracy – neither of which a staunch Brexiteer would accept in this battle for British sovereignty. But these are the principles they should accept, for the UK’s unity as we know it depends on regulatory alignment across the board.

The Single Market’s function in the UK has evolved considerably from that of the European Economic Community outlined in the Treaty of Rome. No longer will the emphasis be on the ‘lifting of living standards’, but I suggest, on the continuation of internal unity within the UK by avoiding anomalous regional divergence to the European Single Market, as earlier proposed by May. In fact, I believe Single Market membership to be safer than the decision made on Friday 8th to dish out EU citizenship to people born in Northern Ireland, since this preferential treatment will only add fuel to the fire of Scottish independence and London-based financiers.


We are currently at a noteworthy juncture in UK political history. The challenge now arises: the UK government must deliver a Brexit which abides by Theresa May’s Lancaster House Speech, where she promised to ‘restore…our parliamentary democracy, [and] national self-determination’. However, the realisation of such a restoration of sanctified parliamentary sovereignty conflicts with seven of May’s objectives; certainty, control of our laws, strengthening of the Union, maintaining the common travel area with Ireland, control of immigration, a Free Trade Agreement with Europe, and a smooth, orderly Brexit.

Certainty for businesses and the Belfast Agreement will be assured by Single Market access which would prevent a financial sector exodus to the continent and promise to maintain the common travel area with Ireland, avoiding a hard border. This in turn would strengthen the Union by underpinning territorial integrity of Northern Ireland – an action that would also guarantee that of Gibraltar, when that rears its head in the near future. All of this, in turn, would guarantee a smooth, orderly Brexit while ensuring economic certainty.

You may note that ‘control of our laws’ and ‘control of immigration’ were omitted. Since these objectives can be realised through various political interpretations, let’s just say that Brexiteers will be shrugged off through the illusory Brexit taking place before our very eyes. Compromise comes before dogma in the negotiations – consequently redefining the ‘consistency’ of our Brexit; something which is well illustrated by the decision for the European Court of Justice to remain the final appellate court over EU citizens’ rights in the UK for the immediate eight years following Brexit. The managing class is handling Brexit very differently than the self-appointed people’s spokesperson, Nigel Farage.

We may be leaving the EU on paper, but the reality is anything but that. We must continue to participate in EU institutions which serve us not just on a functional basis, where for example the Single Market provides the UK service industry with a £14 billion net surplus in trade over the EU, but limits EU member states’ leverage over UK territorial integrity. The logical incoherence of both protectionist and ultra-deregulation Tories must be bypassed by the Keynesian majority which can find support across the rest of the House.

Our consensus-building, representative democracy is taking back control from a fruitless stint of popular referenda. Now is the time for certainty to be restored, along with our economic and political dignity.


[Originally posted 10/12/2017 in The Gryphon Views online:]

The President’s Big Day Out: Trump Goes to The General Assembly

The stage for this year’s UN General Assembly was still being set up as late as two and a half minutes to midnight on the Doomsday Clock! And against a backdrop of a major earthquake – of a political nature – in the Anglo-Saxon lands of the Northern hemisphere, the hefty exchanges of nuclear-tinged vitriol, and global migration crises, the precariousness of the global system, upheld by the UN since its post-war conception, hangs delicately in the balance.
But instead of a pair of caring hands of an experienced diplomate to confront the problems of today, international delegates got a Trump rally.

The week-long UN General Assembly is an annual plenum where every internationally recognised sovereign state – key word for this year being sovereign – reiterates its commitment and appraisal to UN-brokered agreements, shared values and goals and the importance of international cooperation in the maintenance of peace and prevention of conflict.

Some nations recount their history and raison d’être in global affairs. And from these often self-indulgent speeches we can analyse the use of national leaders’ rhetoric as they seek to justify their aims and means as national and international actors. That is something we received from President Trump this week.

I’ll start with patriotism. Because it seems as though what Trump’s America is faced with right this moment is the risk of occupation from foreign fascist forces. This was illustrated as Donald juxtaposed the war time resistance efforts of Britain and France with the need for a unilateralist approach. It’s immediately apparent that Trump sees his country as a stand-alone target, and hence plays on patriotic fervour to defend his shifting foreign policy.

What’s to be gleamed from that? Trump personally seems to have both abandoned and denounced institutional opportunism and international organisations and regimes. This will serve to, whether intentionally or inadvertently, cow its Western allies into a rethink of their reliance on henceforth outdated military pacts with the United States. Following US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis’ statement that they have not attempted to shoot down either of the two ballistic missiles recently fired over Japan, as they did not pose a threat to the United States, Japan’s premier, Shinzo Abe, has since found a premise to rush to rewrite Japan’s pacifist constitution, while South Korea began to flirt with possession of its own nuclear arsenal. Hardly in-line with the cheerful notion of peace, cooperation, and altruistic world governance, is it?

But it also underlined Trump’s underlying commitment to his own electoral promises: the restauration and normalisation of patriotism in the United States. Such a rhetorical question employed at the UN in this light sounds like “Are we still patriots enough to protect our sovereignty?”

When you see Trump finally peel himself away from the podium, trot a couple of steps, extend his waiving hand towards a fictitious crowd of fans, (repeat two more times), and shuffle towards the stage exit, you come to realise the importance of this address to his American Trumpistas. His speech was brimming with predictable rhetorical devices and vivid, quotable language that his Twitter followers are already familiar with. Indeed, the use of ‘Rocket Man’ and ‘loser terrorists’ had already proliferated in the Twittersphere before this speech – easy to hashtag and subtly drop into any 140-character-long logic on the nuances of the North Korean problem and domestic terrorism.

And what’s more, such language facilitates an oversimplification of the endless intricacies that international coalitions at the UN aim to overcome. While Trump acknowledges that “Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War Two,” what he doesn’t realise is: first, the irony; but second, his failure to interact within the international community to uphold these values enshrined in the UN.

Contrary to what a Wall Street Journal commentator claimed, Trump is not an adherent of realpolitik. Trump entered an environment in which he personally rejects the constructivist values, and expects to be adorned and respected. The Donald wasn’t at the Security Council on Tuesday. His rejection of institutional structures and processes as instruments, through which one achieves strategic (national) interests, places him outside of the typically observed model of the rational-realist actor of today.

Fiery statements of his such as “Major portions of the world are in conflict, and some, in fact, are going to hell,” and his threat to “totally destroy” North Korea, further allude to the USA’s reassuring might in a world where the good must counter acts of evil.


However, this doesn’t simplify the real negotiations and processes being carried out by international actors and mediators in the Western Pacific, or on the UN Security Council. Real consensus is being built between veto-wielders over North Korean containment, facilitated by the USA’s own Nikki Haley, is a terrific sign of how the establishment upholds continuity and commitment to the UN, while a head of state is completely averse to it.


So this is the inherently contradictory nature of Trump’s America. The alienation effect felt by US allies is forcing them to face their new realities, adapt their realpolitik and continue multilateral processes, while Trump’s America becomes increasingly isolated under its self-obsessed exceptionalism and withdrawal from The Paris Climate Accord and potentially the Iran Nuclear Deal. The tragic irony of it all: his boast to the Assembly “As the president of the United States, I will always put America first.”


[Originally posted 25/09/2017 in The Gryphon Views online:]

Die Linke Greift An! Germany and The Extreme Left

G20 was three weeks ago now, but we still remember it as quite the spectacle. Angela Merkel and Xi Jinping stood steadfast as the defenders of free trade, and our suspicions on Trump’s inward looking self, and that of a warm, suspect relationship with Putin were confirmed. Yet, the summit was most memorable for the host city, Hamburg, as a barrage of anti-capitalist violence festered on the sidelines of the so called ‘Welcome to Hell’ demonstrations. Though there were cases of police brutality, law enforcers overwhelmingly found themselves the targets of senseless violence, despite negotiations between police and demo leaders throughout the weekend aimed to keep the peace. Over 470 policemen were injured over the span of the event, according to Hamburg’s police commissioner, Hartmut Dudde. Meanwhile, Hafenstadt Hamburg and the German state are to foot the minimum estimated costs of €130 million on a fifty-fifty split.

What’s emerged in public discourse in Hamburg’s aftermath has been fractious. Calls from Merkel’s conservative CDU ministers and those of the CSU, its Bavarian sister party, to crush suspected extreme left-wing cells in swathes of alternative, youthful city spaces in Hamburg and Berlin in particular, but also further afield, have proven fractious to current social and political debate. This has not least been immediately apparent in Leipzig, where I’ve just finished studying for a semester.

Leipzig is a naturally left-wing stronghold in line with its history as a socialist state from 1949 to 1989. Many quarters at the extremities of the city consist of areas appearing radically left wing in comparison to British university towns, where the most controversial statements made are, in contrast, fashion-related. In the western districts of Lindenau and Plagwitz you can come across hip and youthful restaurants and bars – upon closer inspection non-profit projects, or communes to you and me.

Just south of the town you find the Connewitz area, and the renowned Conne Island. Now, this is the epitome of left-wing activism in Leipzig. The project doesn’t only put on free open airs – an essentially anti-capitalist phenomenon absent in the UK since the Public Order Bill of 1986 – but it sells itself as a hub for antifa; an Antifa Area which sprout up in other parts of town, too. These are spaces for antifa members to meet and galvanise. But this alone is nothing to be fearful towards, no matter what German secretary of state De Maizière will have you believe. Because what is often missing from the debate in Saxony, the Bundesland in which Leipzig is situated, is the rise of the extreme right, and namely Pegida (Patriotic Europeans against The Islamisation of Europe) in Dresden. By contrast, antifa (Antifascist Action) and the party die Linke (The Left) are ideological partners, with antifa acting as an extension of it somewhat – the social opposition group to fascist, neo-Nazi and nationalist forces in German society.

The left wing communities in Leipzig have reacted defiantly to mud-slinging accusations. While many Germans I’ve spoken to in the past fortnight have joked dismissively of the left wing threat, sardonically claiming ‘Die Linke greift an!’ (‘The left is attacking!’), some anti-capitalists and hard left citizens have made their presence better known. ‘ANTIFA’ and ‘ACAB’ (All Cops are Bastards) graffiti has appeared out the blue in the more finely preserved parts of town, for example on the side of the well-known Feinkosten building; a scruffy ‘ACAB’ etched above the gloriously bland combination of quintessentially East German colours and socialist puppet figures.

ANTIFA - Leipzig Uni

Come to Hamburg / Fight G20 – Taken 8th July 2017 at Bibliotheca Albertina, Leipzig

But not only have the common Leipzigers been making decisive statements, but also their mayor, Burkhard Jung. In the face of growing opposition to the continuation of such social projects in the Saxon state parliament, Jung has reasserted the centre-left voice of tolerance and reason by fully ruling out any closure of the projects. However, Leipzig’s CDU fraction’s chief, Frank Kupfer, warned that: “We must fundamentally inspect so-called alternative youth centres in Saxony, whether in Leipzig, Dresden or Chemnitz,” reitterating the CDU’s sharpened tone. Yet, Tom Mannewitz, a Chemnitz-based researcher of extremism, erred on the cautionary side of the debate, warning that in the worst case scenario many left-leaning activists suddenly deprived of their local projects may turn to radicalisation in reaction to local governments’ direct involvement.

Although there were Brits, French, Spanish, Italians, and Swiss amongst the 186 arrested, pointing to a greater European scope within the extreme left debate, can one say with confidence that left wing extremism is both solely to blame for Hamburg, and also as big a European problem as it’s being made out? Indeed, De Maizière even called for a European database on left-wing extremists. Let’s briefly consider the argument in the German context.

Flora - Das Haus
Rote Flora – Former Hamburg theatre-come-squat since 1989 (Photo credit)

In relation to the G20 event itself, the police deployment in Hamburg consisted of forces from across Germany. Although this wouldn’t prove a problem in the UK due to centralisation, Germany’s federal structure was decisive in the nature of the police deployment and the reception of the events that unfolded. In every state police behaviour varies considerably due to the federal and cultural nature of each Bundesland. A Bavarian policeman is expected to handle a left-wing demonstrator differently than one from Berlin, for example. As such, the different approaches and, arguably, greater tendencies by some policemen to act more violently was exacerbated from what one criminologist was the poor distribution of information, and consequent nervousness and primal behaviour of some policemen. The fractured structure, and the consequential poor planning of the German authorities with various police forces, is one factor that contributed to the loss of civil order. Hamburg’s police president, Ralf Meyer, this week conceded that ‘Policemen make mistakes, like all humans,’ demonstrating the extent to which the authorities hold themselves in part responsible.

On the other hand, politically motivated crime on the extreme left is a well-established phenomenon in Germany, whose former West German state experienced the Red Army Faction and ‘Autonomous’ terrorism since before German unification. There has even been investigations into the Die Linke political party due to a considerable number of sitting extremist parliament representatives. Indeed, political crime has been steadily rising for over a decade now. According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, extreme left violent crime has quadrupled between 2002 and 2013. In December 2013 alone, a total of 170 policemen were injured through far-left acts of violence surrounding Hamburg’s infamous Rote Flora squat; far-left violence against policemen rose by 28% between 2012 and 2013. However, though far left acts of violence are higher than those on the far right, politically motivated acts of crime recorded in 2013 are effectively twice as high amongst the far right (17,042) than the far left (8,673), with extreme right criminals committing a considerable amount of propagandist crimes – 12,219 in 2012, to be precise. Even more serious is the news of rising xenophobic violence committed by the far-right; 478 acts of violence against foreigners were committed in 2013, while hate crimes had risen 11% on the previous year to 3,248. It can’t be denied that politically motivated crimes are on the rise on both sides of the deep ideological divide, with neither side able to defend themselves on the topic.

Yet, cynically, some suggest that the failure of Hamburg conveniently comes less than two months before the federal elections. Criticism towards Hamburg’s SPD (Labour equivalent party) mayor / minister president is pointedly intended to undermine his authority to govern in a city state which delivered four SPD and one CDU Bundestag representatives on a tight vote share of 32.4% and 32.1%, respectively. The CDU already feels invincible following state election wins in the former SPD safe state North Rein Westphalia, with two other wins in Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein so far this year. Although the anarchy of Hamburg is a convenient narrative for the CDU’s proven and popular mode of governance, Angela Merkel remains cautious as not to upset the SPD, her formal coalition partner.

So what can be said? Hamburg has definitely become a hot topic in Germany. The questions it raised are reverberating in every corner of the Berlin Republic and point to an uneasy truth about the rise of far-left extremism. The images of the German Mittelstand’s battered businesses, burnt out automobiles and masked brutes are now cemented in a German consciousness – simultaneously confronted by the xenophobic violence of the far-right. In both cases, however, it seems that the causes could be uprooted locally; state appropriation of Rote Flora in Hamburg to rid Hamburg and Germany of a far-left stronghold, in conjunction with a thorough rethink of how to resolve the problem of violent xenophobia, formerly perpetrated against Turkish ‘guest workers’, and now refugees. In any case, let’s hope neither phenomena are here to stay.

May Got Us into This Mess. Now Let Her Get Us out of It.

These election results are a shambles. There’s no two ways about it. It isn’t just that this £130 million election didn’t give the increased majority the Conservatives had predicted, but the UK now has an illegitimate governing party in both numerical terms, and in light of the Tories’ thoughtless gamble on the social and political stability of this country. And have we yet looked across to the satirical vultures in Europe? We now inhabit a Tory-governed fiefdom which has lost the respect of its citizens and of its neighbours. Unsurprisingly, there are calls from all British parties for Theresa May’s resignation. But – and I know this is a big but, but it can’t be dismissed – we must allow Theresa May to lead us once again.

First of all, let’s get legal. Our constitution stipulates that until May loses control of her majority government on confidence and supply, she has the right to remain prime minister. With the prospect of the DUP settling our current hung parliament with an informal coalition deal, May has the foreseeable confidence of a majority in the Commons. The DUP will of course be listened to as an informal partner. However, as is convention, it will extract only trivial concessions from Westminster, such as pushing for a rehash of the ‘British Olympics Team’ to the ‘UK Olympics Team’. Yep, you read that right.

But in such situations, and those slightly more concerning, rest assured that Ruth Davis and her sizeable Scottish Tory lot will make their voices heard for LGBTQ rights were Arlene Foster to get too ahead of herself. And as for Brexit, for which the DUP campaigned on a hard-Brexit — an exit from the single market which is heralded by both the Brexit God himself, David Davis, and Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer — Arlene Foster wants a frictionless border with the Republic of Ireland and a free trade deal with the EU. Whether or not this turns out to be a case of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’, this coupled with Nigel Dodd’s refusal to take up any of May’s cabinet positions should reassure us that the DUP won’t jeopardise Westminster’s unbiased approach to Northern Irish politics since the Good Friday Agreement.

Secondly, calls for a new general election are premature and not what the country needs. We may decry the Conservatives as undeserved in their right to govern, especially with its choice of political partner. But let’s be under no allusion here; with the DUP-Conservative partnership the Tories have effectively achieved a minimum winning coalition. As the opposition, Labour would face a nigh-on impossible task to manage a coalition with the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, and Caroline Lucas. Compromises with three coalition partners would undermine effective governance, and even then the Conservatives would still hold more seats than a fanciful (queue new acronym) Labour-SNP-LD-G coalition.

But okay, let’s say we fork out another £130 million for a preemptive election later this year. The change of government that us on the left are after would not look so certain. We must remember that Labour, despite its incredible performance, is still 64 seats behind a Commons majority. We must also be confident that Labour can retain and increase its vote share in constituencies won recently with a slim plurality, e.g. Kensington (+20), while digging deeper into Tory strongholds.

Though say Corbyn pulls it out of the bag. Another change of government in the next year or two. This brings me onto my third point. What message is this sending to Brussels and what palpable difference will Labour be able to make to Brexit negotiations which at that point may be too far advanced? Any attempts at backtracking on Theresa May’s negotiations will be met with frustration on the EU’s part, and I’m sure we’ll learn very quickly, if not in the many months ahead, that the EU will only be pushed so far. If the EU is to cede anything to May, it needs to know that it can predict and have confidence in the UK’s position. If the talks are made too difficult for the EU, then know that it’ll be harder to shore up a unanimous vote from all remaining 27 EU member states in favour of extending the negotiations.

I know what you’re thinking now; “So what? That’s it? Hand over another five years to the Tories to unleash another unfettered class war? We’re just gonna let them destroy the Union and make what’s left of it a tax haven off the shores of mainland Europe?” Not at all. I believe the opposition now finds itself in an exceptional win-win scenario. There is now support across the political spectrum, even allegedly amongst senior Conservatives, for a cross-party approach to Brexit. Both the ‘Progressive Alliance’ and backbench Tories have May in a corner and will have their voices heard. Her hard-Brexit / no-deal ultimatum is a distant dream. Theresa May well be the face of this government, but we now pull its strings.

Forget class war; the civil service will soon be so overwhelmed by the mammoth task of exiting the world’s largest trading bloc that there’ll be no time to expect radical policy change to be pushed through the ministries. As such, May’s government’s one aim is to ‘make a success of Brexit’. If she loses the confidence of the Commons by the time the negotiations are either concluded, broken off, or inconclusive within the next 22 months, it’s Labour’s turn to step in.

We can take solace in this. When the next election finally arises, we’re already gifted with the rhetoric: All blame will lie on Theresa May and the Conservatives. All shortcomings in this government’s approach to Brexit will lie with this coalition of chaos.


[Originally posted 19/06/2017 in The Gryphon Views online:]

Die EU muss sich gegen die Türkei wehren – Die Beitrittsverhandlungen sind zu Ende

EU-Mitgliedschaft für die Türkei ist die umstrittenste Debatte unter EU-Mitgliedstaaten.  Seit dem nationalen und europaweiten Wahlkampf zur Erweiterung der Mächte des türkischen Präsidenten lassen sich die Spaltungen zwischen der Türkei und der EU weiter verdeutlichen. Spannungen tauchen sich seither immer wieder auf, ob während der von der türkischen Regierung geführten Kampagne in den Niederländen und in Deutschland, oder durch die manchen Kommentare von bestimmten Euro- und Staats- beziehungsweise Regierungschefs nach dem Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung. Das deutsche Verbot gegen der politischen Aktivität türkischer Offiziellen seitens pro-Präsidialreform löste eine Verschlechterung der bilateralen Relationen unter den beiden Staaten, die man noch jetzt wahrnehmen kann.

In der letzten Zeit gibt es in der Tat einen türkischen Versuch, den Zugriff der Bundesregierung auf deutsche Kasernen in der türkischen Stadt Incirlik zu sperren. Man kann das einfach als Rache für das Verbot gegen die Kampagnenführung der türkischen Abgeordneten interpretieren. Aber diese diplomatische Kabbelei, die anscheinend nur mithilfe der Vereinigten Staaten überwindbar ist, gefährdet die Fortsetzung der deutschen Missionen gegen den IS. Angesichts dieses sehr aktuellen Problems und dessen Folgen, und zwar der heutigen Ankündigung Erdogans, dass er trotz seiner Präsidentschaft seine Rolle als Chef der AKP fortfährt, was die Unparteilichkeit eines Präsidenten untergräbt, muss die EU letztendlich zur Vernunft kommen. Sie muss sich den weit verbreiteten europäischen Konsens aneignen, d.h. sie muss die EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei zumindest kurzfristig, außerdem unmittelbar aufheben. Die Türkei ist nicht mehr der zuverlässige Partner an der Grenze des Nahen Ostens, und bestimmt kein Befürworter der Demokratie – eine Voraussetzung von möglichen EU-Mitgliedstaaten.

Es lässt sich nicht leugnen, dass diese Ereignisse nur die Spitze des Eisberges einer Menge Unterschiede zwischen der EU und der Türkei darstellen. Sie verschaukelt die EU seit einer langen Weile. Die sogenannten Vortrittshilfen zur Förderung der Demokratie werden bisher ins türkische Regime ohne Übersicht investiert. Der Einsatz von ‘Soft Power’ ist sicher wohlmeinend, aber er ist kurzsichtig gewesen, da der langfristige Trend der türkischen politischen Kultur leider auf eine Autokratie hindeutet. Die Verwendung finanzieller Unterstützung als Bestandteil von Anreiz- und Zwangsmaßnahmen im Falle der Türkei ist aber nicht das erste Mal gewesen, wo die EU einen vergeblichen Versuch zur Förderung Demokratie unternommen hat. ‘Europas letzter Diktator’, der weißrussische Präsident Aleksander Lukaschenko, verschaukelte die EU am Ende der Nullerjahre. Drei Milliarden Euro wurde dem Land versprochen, solange Lukaschenko Demonstrationen und Oppositionswahlkämpfen in der Zivilgesellschaft für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2010 erlaubt. Das hat er schon bis dem Wahlabend getan, zu welchem Zeitpunkt er die Oppositionsmitglieder inhaftieren ließ, Proteste niederschlug und die bisher erhaltenen Fonds auf die von sich selbst versprochene Erhöhung der Pensionsrückstellungen und des Mindestlohns umgelenkt wurden, was seinen Wahlsieg gewährleistete.

Dies Ereignis unterminierte den Zweck der Demokratisierungfonds, d.h. die Förderung gleichgewichtiger politischen Möglichkeiten innerhalb der Zivilgesellschaft, sowie die Aufrechterhaltung der getrennten politischen Institutionen und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Gleichermaßen ist es inakzeptabel, dass die EU das Geld weiter auf das türkische Regime übergibt, während Journalisten, unter denen Deutscher Deniz Yücel, noch im Gefängnis gehalten werden. Politische Gegner und regionale Minderheiten werden ebenso mishandelt.

Ansonsten weisen weitere Hinweise darauf hin, dass weder die Türkei, noch die EU sich einander innerhalb der EU begegnen wollen. Laut den Ergebnissen des Eurobarometers im Jahr 2006 fühlten sich bloß 29% der Türken europäisch. Das ist ja auch eine kleinere Prozentanzahl als die Briten (32%), die zehn Jahre später für den Austritt von der EU bei einer Volksabstimmung wählten. Mittlerweile sind etwa drei Viertel der EU-Bevölkerung gegen den Beitritt der Türkei in die EU. Das ist bemerkenswert. Sofort gibt es deutliche Hinweise auf dem Niveau der Zivilgesellschaft, wo sowohl die Mehrheit der Türken sich nicht mit dem Begriff ‘europäisch’ identifizieren, als auch die Mehrheit Europäer die Ausgrenzung der Türkei für wichtig halten. Wenn die Politik auf nationalen sowie supranationalen Ebenen nicht eindeutig ist, soll man auf jeden Fall die Meinungen des Volks im Gedächtnis behalten. Ein politischer, religiöser oder anderer unvorhersehbarer Kulturkampf muss verhindert werden.

Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass die Türkei nicht mehr der NATO angehören darf. Die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten sollen noch mit der Türkei auf den Einzelnfall handeln, beispielsweise um die Verlängerung des Flüchtlingsabkommens, ohne große Zugeständnisse bezüglich der Grundsätze der EU zu machen. Die EU und die Türkei, sowie der Rest Europa und die Verbündete im Westen, haben bestimmte Kämpfe gemeinsam, wie der Kampf gegen internationalen Terrorismus, wirtschaftlichen Erfolg, und vor allem die Eindämmungspolitik. Die letzte Politik hält Außenminister Sigmar Gabriel für äußerst wichtig, trotz seiner Opposition zum türkischen EU-Beitritt. Niemand will, dass die Türkei ‘in Richtung Russlands geschoben wird’. Es muss einfach einen neuen Ansatzpunkt zur Beziehung mit der Türkei enstehen, damit sie sich endlich der EU nähert und die Einflusssphäre Russlands entkommt.

Die EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen sind vorbei. Der Beitrittsprozess hat gescheitert, so wie in Weißrussland. Jetzt benötigt es aber die beidseitige Versöhnung und eine Auseinandersetzung in der EU zum Thema special relationship mit der Türkei. Das ist kein Ausnahmefall. Lassen wir uns davon lernen, dass Peripheriestaaten an der Grenze des Nahen Osten, sowie Russlands, nimmer die Möglichkeit haben müssen, ein Mitgliedstaat zu werden, ohne die grundsätzlichen Prinzipien der EU erfüllen zu können. Dass die EU richtig feste Bollwerke gegen v.a. Russland braucht, bedeutet dass, potenzielle Beitrittskandidaten dringend vertrauenswürdig sein müssen. EU-Mitgliedschaft ist nicht der einzige Beweis davon, und die EU muss lernen, Mitgliedschaft als bezeichnend der einzigen Sicherheits- und Wohlhabenheitsgarantie zu übersehen.

Brexit: The Union Strikes Back!

In the face of the UK’s uncompromising Brexit demands, it must be noted that the EU has begun to act beyond merely defending the values and principles enjoyed by its members. On the surface one sees the likes of Merkel, Hollande and Junker adopting rhetoric of solidarity, underlining the necessary respect for the EU’s institutions as the UK (un)diplomatically approaches its future relationship with the bloc. However, certain actors within the Union are successfully sharpening Brussels’ tone and are looking to make major political gains out of Brexit at the expense of the UK’s territorial integrity.

One would think immediately of warm European support for another potential Scottish referendum, considering the regional voting outcome and the SNP’s pro-EU stance. Though the EU reluctantly dismisses Scottish independence, whose succession from the UK would vindicate regionalist and independence movements in Belgium and Spain, the Union is now seemingly eying up land grabs of British territories which share land borders with the EU.

More specifically, territorial revisionism is being fanned on the Iberian Peninsula and in Ireland for political gain. Both Spain and the Republic of Ireland have longingly strived for the reintegration of the British territories of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland for longer than the EU’s existed. While the return of Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar is a truism of Spanish foreign / domestic policy, Spain can certainly see Gibraltar’s overwhelming 96% of votes for Remain as grounds on which to negotiate an exceptional case for Gibraltar if it wishes to retain its access to the EU, notwithstanding the UK’s hard Brexit line. Meanwhile, Red Poll C, the Republic of Ireland’s pollster of choice, reported that two thirds of its sampled electorate would vote for a reunited Ireland, reigniting the Ireland question, and entertaining the thought of an if not too idealistic border solution between the two Irelands.

The EU has identified an opportunity to present itself as a more paternalistic state, positioned to ambitiously unite regions whose distinctive political, ethnic and religious cultures stand in stark contrast with one another. I purposefully refer to the EU as a state here. Were a nation to leave a trading bloc like the ALADI (the Latin American Integration Association), it wouldn’t typically provoke such a furore. ‘Ah, well. That country’s loss’, would be a standard response. However, the European Union is treating Brexit like a case of succession. And this entails punitive actions beyond the scope of mere loss of membership. This points to continuity in the EU’s policy of sporadic and opportunistic expansion. But without a European army, the European Brexit negotiating team has instead drafted the provocative measures in its legalese.

The ‘East-German Clause’, which would see Northern Ireland seamlessly transition into the EU as the former German Democratic Republic did over 25 years ago, and Brussels’ offering Spain a veto right over the status of Gibraltatar are underhand actions which suggest opportunities for EU statecraft; further expansion.

On June 23rd the EU faced a turning point in its post-Maastricht method of governance. The eradication of euroscepticism thenceforth became the EU’s top priority, which meant kickstarting an ambiguous campaign to raise popular support. Further integration was dismissed, for as an argument it could not counter the pressure from eurosceptic voices in central and southern Europe, and was often pointed to as the source of the UK’s opposition to the Union. Since then, the EU has had to make statements of strength in its period of crisis.

European leaders have come out committed to the ‘project’. Francçois Hollande maintains that Britain must be punished for its decision to exit, with Juncker also wanting to make an example out of Britain for any member states dabbling with euroscepticism. Brexit has even become a point-scoring game in the French presidential election, where frontrunner Emmanuel Macron alluded to the renegotiation of Le Touquet border treaty which sees British and French borders extend to Calais and Dover, respectively. Again, this is an affront to what Britain has taken for granted as an extended border on the cliff-face of the continent.

The humiliation and physical removal of Britain is certainly on the Union’s agenda. Nobody in Brussels wants to see Britain come out on top over the next two years. Killing two birds with one stone the EU will make British concessions both benefit EU member states, in turn presenting the EU as rightfully having its member states’ interests at heart, while also serving as a stark warning to the less EU enthused states that they would be much worse off outside of the club.

As a British europhile, one sees the EU’s traditionally patient and accommodating character slipping away, and it presents a moral dilemma. One identifies neither with the May government, nor with the EU’s actions as of late. The UK has been hijacked by Brexit zealots, forcing the EU into a corner. Recent developments show just how far the EU will go to defend itself against europhobia.

‘I love WikiLeaks’: Julian Assange and FANCY BEAR

I once considered Julian Assange a man of principles and admired his efforts to create a platform where all the world’s darkest secrets could be shared without someone fearing reprisal. I even went to see Cumberbatch immortalise the Australian in The Fifth Estate – I was sadly that enthusiastic. But since Assange’s calculated smear campaign against Hillary last summer, I’d not have expected hippy Assange to prop up such a candidate like Trump. I questioned WikiLeaks’ allegiance to the truth.

I couldn’t seem to rationalise why WikiLeaks published the hacked DNC emails on its website; I even convinced myself Assange was a man with no true allegiances, just wanting to spur on a kind of dialectic, ushering in some anarchic change. However, Business Insider UK’s report of long-standing links between Nigel Farage and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, and Farage’s shady visit to the Ecuadorian Embassy on Thursday 9 March, made me stop and think twice. Both Assange and Farage, as well as Trump, are the anti-establishment. But is this at all newsworthy? And what are their shared motivations — their common ground?

It turns out there’s quite a lot. As for Assange and Trump, they’ve been implicated in a clandestine love affair since the very beginning of the DNC hacks, with Russia the spectral middle man. In a brief breakdown:

  • FANCY BEAR, i.e. Russia’s military intelligence agency, infiltrates the DNC in April 2016. Its targets? Opposition research on Trump and the DNC’s emails.
  • In June, WikiLeaks, Assange’s technological showpiece, publishes a torrent which it encourages the DNC hacker’s findings to be uploaded to. Later that month, Julian Assange claims he has “enough evidence” to indict Hilary Clinton.
  • It reaches a crescendo on July 22 when WikiLeaks releases 20,000 DNC emails. WikiLeaks threatens a journalist with legal action over Twitter two days later for suggesting links between Russia, Trump and WikiLeaks.

Assange’s vendetta for Clinton was made clear in an interview with ITV political editor, Robert Peston. Assange derided her Libyan blunder in 2011, labelling her a ‘liberal war hawk’. By contrast, Assange defended a Trump presidency as “completely unpredictable”. And that’s somewhat more reassuring, of course.

Putin’s motivations are more convincing; she’s the epitome of neo-liberalism and short-sighted American imperialism. However, Clinton’s thinly veiled comments on the legitimacy of the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia are believed to be the main reason for pop president Putin’s hostility.

Trump’s unrelenting barage of attacks weren’t visceral, rather tactical. He’s a pragmatic man, and the Clintons, former expedient business aquaintances, were simply obstacles firmly established on the Hill who needed to be torn down. Trump’s opposition to Clinton was obviously for the presidency, and this did not stop him from appropriating campist discourse and utilising its outlets.

And if it’s not all dead obvious that something suspect was going on between the three, I leave you with the man himself:

“Russia, I hope you’re listening. If you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press” – Donald J. Trump, 27th July 2016

and then the not too subtle

“I love WikiLeaks” – Donald J. Trump, 10th October 2016

So what about Farage? In short, UKIP under Farage has been arguing for Assange’s release and the dropping of the European Arrest Warant in relation to rape allegations in Sweden. UKIP MEPs have been calculated, attempting to positively present Assange’s release within the EU Parliament and even the House of Lords. It’s worth noting at this point that an American reporter questioned Sean Spicer on Farage meeting with Assange on the 9th March, asking whether he did so on behalf of the Trump Administration. The links with Farage may be tenuous insofar as what’s materially there, though the ideological similarities between Trump and Farage suggest that something may be amiss.

But the common ground is unquestionably Russia. Russia’s political elite have had their fingers in all three of their pies; through financial support to Trump’s property enterprises, but also in the form of foreign agent Michael Flynn, and a dose of saucy kompromat. But pan-eurosceptics like Farage and Le Pen have also benefitted, with the latter financially entwined in the Russian banking system, while the former rims the Russian propagandist mouthpiece RT. He’s an eager guest, most recently berated by a young girl for his xenophobia, shortly after being knighted with an inflatable sword. But apparently nothing on WikiLeaks?

Were you to go and visit the WikiLeaks site, you’d be faced with pages upon pages of WikiLeaks revelations on domestic and international US controversies. But go enter ‘Russian cronyism’ or ‘Russian corruption’. Nothing appears on the subject. I challenge you to find any WikiLeaks document discrediting Russia.

WikiLeaks can be seen as a campist organisation; a conduit for Russian intelligence enhancement, and as such a proponent of a bipolar world like that during the Cold War. The WikiLeaks revelations on American foreign and domestic surveillance fit well within the grand narrative of American distrust and imperialist tendencies. The likes of WikiLeaks and RT present these happily to an enraged, campist left. But ironically, the undermining of American security agencies is in turn bolstering right-wing crony Trump’s attacks on the corrupt establishment.

Whether it intended to or not, WikiLeaks has inadvertently propelled Trump to dizzying heights, who’s enacting isolationist and protectionist measures. But crucially, the US is now getting cold feet over duties it’s performed thus far. Trump’s shaky on NATO, accuses the ECB – most notably Germany – of currency manipulation, and is already lifting sanctions on Russia following the DNC hacks and the annexation of Crimea. This gives Russia hella confidence; the undermining of its neighbouring political block is advantageous as it seeks disunity to exploit political and economic opportunities. Think Brexit. Think the Baltics. Think Ukraine. Think resentful Turkey. It’s just like the prophecying Russian foreign policy bible: Foundations of Geopolitics.

So should we worry? These political actors have been playing the long game and are sure to continue. What is lacking, unfortunately, is concrete evidence implicating each individual in a group conspiracy. More likely is that the Kremlin is directing these snide operations so as to avoid crossing paths. But funnily enough, we rely on Assange-like whistleblowers to confirm these links. Looks like we’re going to have to play the long game with them.