The Era of Rearmament

The Ukraine war reshapes European politics and priorities. From being hopefully protected under a largely US financed and equipped NATO umbrella, the EU is adopting to a situation where they are afraid of being left alone if attacked by Russia.

Two alternatives exist for a way forward. Try to develop an all-European security structure which includes Russia, or rearmament against Russia. 

Nothing indicates the EU and their partners are interested in the first alternative. Peace and negotiation efforts during the Ukraine war have been attempted by Belarus, Israel an Turkey. The west has obstructed the efforts. Now the US has started a peace process, and the europeans are not happy with that. 

The strongly preferred alternative is bolstering the defence as much and as soon as possible. Albeit the possibility of a Russian attac seems unrealistic. Why should Russia attac other European countries,  most of them NATO-members. Ukraine is special, Russia has warned for many years that the country has to be neutral. Of course that can not be used as an excuse for the invasion, but it can explain it.

President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, presented last week a defence package. It is based on the assumption that Europe is threthened in a very real way. Europe have to massively boost it`s defence spending. We are in the era of rearmament.

The ReArm Europe plan consists of 5 parts, together they are meant to mobilise close to EUR 800 billion for a safe and resilient Europe.

It is unclear how much weapons and defence systems Europe can produce and how much must be delivered from others.  According to EU`s Compass of Competitiveness is the unions defence industry suffering from a combination of structural weaknesses and decades of underinvestment.

     

 

Time for rent-seeking - EU introduces Clean Industrial Act

Not competitive globally, the EU has presented a plan for competitiveness and decarbonisation - the Clean Industrial Deal.

As prescribed by  Mario Draghi in his report last year, the union will use decarbonisation efforts to catch up with the US, China and others. 

Main elements of the Clean Industrial Deal are

• Affordable energy. To day energy prices are much higher in the EU than in US and China. An affordable Energy Action Plan shall lower the energy bills for industries, businesses and households. 

• Boosting demand for clean products. A Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act is meant to increase demand for EU-made products. The Commission will also review the Public Procurement Framework in 2026 to introduce sustainability, resilience and European preference criteria in public procurement for strategic sectors.

• Financing the clean transition. The EU will mobilise over €100 billion to support EU-made clean manufacturing. Among the measures are adoption of a new Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework, decarbonise industry and ensure sufficient manufacturing capacities of clean tech and strengthening the Innovation Fund.

• Promoting circularity in EUs decarbonisation strategy and achieving access to critical raw materials.

• Acquire reliable global partners.

• Actions to get the necessary skills to support the transition to a low-carbon economy, including skills in clkean technologies, digitalisation and entrepreneurship.

This is what the industry has been waiting for! When US (Inflatian Reduction Act) and China are subsidising their industries, its difficult to compete. 

Although EU is implementing Draghis advise, he also warned that using the green agenda to get competitive is risky. If unseccessful it can make the situation worse. 

Keeping the unions extremely ambitious climate policies while fighting for competitiveness prioritising clean tech industry seems like a fantasy. The US has abandoned the climate change strategy, now it is "Drill baby, drill!". And if the EU  can come up with successful and interesting renewables, it will probably be met with US tariffs. 

Versus China the challenge will be to produce better products than the asiatic country. Not an easy task, Chinas electric car and battery industries are highly competitive. 

Perhaps the new big investment in defence industry can strengthen industry and economy, but the color will not be green.

A new Norwegian review of the AAE-agreement - alternatives still taboo

 

Twelve years ago, in 2012, a government appointed committee delivered the first comprehensive review og the EEA and other agreements between Norway and the EU. They concluded that the EEA had been a useful instrument for Norwegian participation in the single market without beeing a member of the union. But the construction suffered from major democratic shortcomings ("fax-democracy"). The evaluation did not discuss alternatives to the EEA.

A new committee was established in 2022. The mandate was to evaluate the development and experiences with the EEA and other Norway-EU agreements since 2012. They delivered their report in april this year. 

The main conclusion prevails: EEA is useful, but in several ways undemocratic for Norway. Ans still no discussion of possible alternatives to the EEA. This is taboo because Norways relationship with the EU is a difficult political question, and the EEA works as a compromise.

Sort of a compensation for the missing discussion of alternatives, the review describes cooperation models between the EU and Switzerkand, the UK and Canada. The committee shows how several assessments indicate that the EEA is a better solution for businesses and economy. But these assessments are uncertain, and the committee does not evaluate to what extent Switzerland, the UK and Canada have preserved democracy and independence compared to Norway.

EU interfering in Norwegian decision making

The Norwegian Parliamnet

The Norwegian government has just ended a public consultation concerning the EUs Revised Renewable Energy Directive. The response was a overwhelming 7 500 answers, most of them from private citizens negative to implementing the directive.

The Renewable Energy Directive is part of the Fourth Energy Package, which is considered relevant for the EEA-agreement, and therefore should be incorperated in the agreement. But many think that building more wind generators and photovoltaic installations will damage valuable Norwegian nature and should be avoided.

This is a highly sensitive political issue, and the commissioner for energy, Kadri, has threatened the Norwegian government with punishment if the directive is not implemented before mid-August.

Inspired by this EU-involvement in the Norwegian decisionmaking process, 23 Norwegian businesses and organisations have asked the EU Commission to set a deadline also for the Energy Efficiency Directive.

This development is very worrying. When the EEA-agreement law was adopted back in 1992, it was a prerequisite that the Norwegian decisionmaking process should not be affected. Now we are in a situation where the process might be altered by the Renewable Energy Directive, where the EU commissioner is interfering and where Norwegian businesses and organisations ask for even more interfering by the Commission.

This is not acceptable.

EU future - added value is key

EU has always been about added value. Its predecessor The European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1951 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. These two countries had time after time ended in war when they acted separately. By placing French and German production of coal and steel - vital resources for a country to wage a war - under a supranational common High Authority, peace was preserved and France and Germany got added value. The idea of using regional integration to achieve more than the participants are able to do separately was developed further, and when the flag of The European Coal and Steel Community was lowered for the final time outside the European Commission building in Brussels in 2002, it was replaced with the EU flag - symbolizing how an innovative idea had prevailed.

But no tree grows into heaven. The EU integration project has met obstacles and crisis. People in Europe want to keep the EU, but they want changes. And the EU establishment should listen. What they call populism is democratic feedback. People react because they don´t feel the European Union gives added value - or more precise: they recognize and appreciate some important aspects of the integration, like a common market, but the project has gone to far. Especially when it comes to democracy many oppose the development and say "this is not added value, this is less democracy."

So instead of an ever closer union, the leading star must be a supranational cooperation which gives added value to everyone. This means a less ambitious integration with respect to "volume", but a more ambitious integration when it comes to identifying areas and tasks where the EU can give added value for a diverse Europe.

 

EU 60 years - shaky, but important

The EUs 60th anniversary will be celebrated in many ways, with a special European Council summit in Rome on 25 March as the most symbolic. It was on this date Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

EU summarizes the developments on its website

Sixty years ago in Rome, the foundations were laid for the Europe that we know today, ushering in the longest period of peace in written history in Europe. The Treaties of Rome established a common market where people, goods, services and capital can move freely and created the conditions for prosperity and stability for European citizens.

On this anniversary, Europe looks back with pride and looks forward with hope. For 60 years we have built a Union that promotes peaceful cooperation, respect of human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality and solidarity among European nations and peoples. Now, Europe's shared and better future is ours to design.

The description points to important positive contributions, but does not reflect the European Union´s current crisis. However, it is necessary to deal with this in a good way for the EU to survive and provide added value in the future.

And it should not be impossible to achieve a workable compromise between europhiles and -sceptics. The common vision must be an appropriate mix of decentralization and supranational power. "An ever closer union" is a dead end street.

Even if the UK don´t want to be part of the single market and is heading for a "hard" Brexit, other sceptics are less radical. E.g. said one of the participants in todays Dutch elections, Geert Wilders, a few days ago to Norwegian journalists that he wanted the national sovereignty back, but that he might accept a Norway-model with EEA-membership. So the EEA, which includes the single market and some other cooperation areas, might give some ideas for development of a new EU vision.

EU future - everything in play

While the European Council today is preparing the EU´s 60th anniversary declaration without PM May attending, the growing lack of European unity makes it hard to deliver anything other than general phrases about the future EU.

At the summit yesterday Poland refused to accept a continuation for Donald Tusk as European Council President. The traditional consenus was stalled. “We know now that it [the EU] is a union under Berlin’s diktat,” the Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, told Polish media.

Earlier this week France, Germany, Italy and Spain - "the big 4" - backed multispeed Europe (Juncker´s scenario 3), a future which the Visegrad group - Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic - does not like.

The leaders participating in the summit yesterday agreed to let a group of willing go ahead with plans to set up a European public prosecutor to probe financial crimes against the EU budget. EU Observer writes: "The move is largely procedural but also symbolic for an EU currently debating the possibility of a so-called multi-speed Europe, where some countries can forge ahead with deeper integration."

The multi-speed strategy is an old idea. When the frontrunners successfully achive added value, the slow ones will be tempted to follow. And integration will be strengthened. 

But the consequences of multi-speed seems more likely to be confusion and disintegration. What matters most is the tasks unifying all the 27 member states. They are the basis and the core of the Union. So instead of escalating multi-speed, the strategy should be to democratize, concentrate and streamline a one-speed European Union.

Vision impossible ?

Last week the European Commission published a White paper on the future of Europe. 5 scenarios were presented: 1. Carrying On, 2. Nothing but the Single Market, 3. Those  Who Want More Do More, 4. Doing Less More Efficiently and 5. Doing Much More Together.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenerarios, the purpose said to be to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. After that, in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

The White Paper´s most important contribution to the EU reform process is perhaps that it apparently recognizes and authorizes the existence of different visions for the European Union´s future. None of them should be excluded from the reform discussions.

The Commission´s openmindedness for discussing reform alternatives might be hard to swallow for the different camps, and already today EurActiv reports that "a scenior Commission official" says Juncker has a preference for the latter option, where the 27 EU members share more powers, resources and decision-making across the board. According to the official Juncker is not a supporter of a two-speed Europe, the third scenario. Juncker alleged rejection of scenario 3, which he has previously preferred, is related to the Visegrad countries' strong dislike for this option.

But in France the En Marche presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron outlines plans for scenario 3. The Eurozone is held back by "shame" and we must "dare to go for a multi-speed Europe", he says.

And in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations the UK, as a backdrop for the EU reform process, will try to show that participation in the internal market is not needed.

Status seems to be that agreement on a EU vision is far away, and the most likely scenario is number 1. Carrying On.

 

The Commission rides again

After years with a Commission looking like a bystander to the crisis management of the European Council, President Juncker finally had the leading role yesterday. He presented a White Paper on the future of Europe.

The White Paper, which gives "reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025", is interesting, and the Juncker commission deserves credit for this initiative.

5 scenarios are presented:

1:  Carrying On
2:  Nothing but the Single Market
3:  Those Who Want More Do More
4:  Doing Less More Efficiently
5:  Doing Much More Together

Together they cover critisism of the status quo and the different views of which reforms are needed. There are many overlaps between each scenario, and they are therefore neither mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenarios, the purpose is to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. Then, in his State of the Union speech in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

To preserve and strengthen the EU, a combination of number 2 and 4 seems to be a possible path to follow. Number 3, which is already a reality for some areas, should not be the vision for the future of Europe. This scenario means several unions - not a common European Union.

Brexit and the internal market

According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Article 26(2)

The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.

The UK, which today participates in the internal market, is now heading for a future outside this EU integration. Instead the government will go for a lower level of integration with the EU and try to negotiate a good trade agreement. This strategy is very interesting, because it represents a deintegration and an exit from the process which regulates the internal market.

There is another option the UK could have chosen. The EEA agreement allows Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein to participate in the internal market without being EU members. The EEA agreement is also dynamic, new relevant EU-laws are incorporated as soon as they are adopted. The UKs strategy is more like the Swiss-EU relationship. Switzerland participates in the internal market based on a lot of separate agreements outside the EEA.

The Brexit-negotiations will show if it is possible for the UK to get satisfactory access to the internal market without participating in it. One of the challenges will be to cope with the dynamic development of the internal market.

The Brexit negotiations will also provide more insight into integration as a supplement to national governance and integration as an end in itself.





.

EU-reforms must be bottom up

The European Union has been an elitist project from the very beginning. The French proposal to establish a European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor to the EU, was a top down initiative. The aim - to make war not only unthinkable but materially unpossible - was of course very praiseworthy. And the supranational basis for the Community was an important innovation. It is also understandable that efficiency was a priority and that cumbersome democratic processes were avoided.

But although the Coal and Steel Community successfully survived difficulties and was followed by an even more ambitious supranational Europan integration project, the democratic shortcomings has never been rectified satisfactorily. An illustration is that the EU today has three presidents, neither of them directly elected by the European people.

EU as an elitist project now seems to have hit the wall. The supranational organisation has ended up in its biggest crisis ever. And the Brussels-bubble seems incapable of identifying and taking the necessary steps forward. The expectations for good reform ideas to be presented at the EUs 60th anniversary in March are low. 

The populus is dissatisfied. "Populist" parties and movements demand changes and challenge the elites in EUs member states. Brexit and Trump show that breakthroughs are possible. The elites perceives this as a dangerous problem. But in reality it is democracy working. And this is also how the EU hopefully can be reformed: from bottom-up by the populus who generate enough pressure to achieve necessary changes.

Brexit guidelines

As soon as the UK formally has notified the EU about its intention to leave the Union - i e having triggered article 50 - the negotiation process will start. The basis for the EU negotiations will be adopted in guidelines. Article 50 says

...In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with the State, settting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union...

The guidelines must be adopted unanimously by the European Council. In informal meetings 29 June and 15 December 2016 the heads of state of governments of the EU without UK (27 member states) have expressed common views on Brexit.

The two statements include a declaration that any agreement will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations and that access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms. They say that the outcome of the UK referendum "creates a new situation for the European Union. We are determined to remain united ...". They also refers to that many people express dissatisfaction with the current state of affair, be it at the European or national level, and they express their intention to work with EU reforms.

Separately, leaders of the EU and the member countries have provided more different views on the forthcoming negotiations. They also disagree about the EU reforms. This situation indicates that adopting guidelines might be difficult for the European Council, but that the process also can be a catalyst for a much needed EU reform.

Europe - more, less or two speeds ?

For several years there has been a lot of talks of a Europe with two speeds. The idea is that different parts of the EU should integrate at different levels and pace depending on the political situation in each individul country. A "core Europe" consisting of the most europhile countries could be acting as a front runner.

And a multispeed Europe is already a reality: EU, EEA, Schengen and the Eurozone all have a different stock of membership countries. A more systematic construction of integration would not represent av novelty, but build on the current situation in Europe.

There are arguments for and against a two-speed Europe. But what should be focused is that the EU represents countries coming together voluntary in a supranational cooperation. They are doing so because they believe this will give them an added value compared to acting alone or cooperate on an intergovernmental basis. To develop a union with multiple speeds is hardly the way to go. Then there will be no longer the European Union, but the European Unions and it will be hopelessly complicated to understand and control. The situation to day with a Eurozone-group within the Union is bad enough. 

Polish Law and Justice (PiS) party leader Kaczyński has warned that any moves toward a two-speed European Union would lead to the bloc falling apart. According to him  a two-speed Europe would lead to the “breakdown, and in fact the liquidation, of the European Union in its current sense”.

Kaczyński´s warning should not be dismissed

In these times of global tectonic changes ...

Before the informal Valletta summit on 3 February the 27 heads of state of government received President Tusk´s "United we stand, divided we fall" letter and also a short "concept paper" to serve as a basis for an open discussion about the future of the EU. The concept paper, drawn up by the European Council Presidency in cooperation with the Italian Government, warned that the EU was at a historical turning point, experiencing dramatic challenges both from within and outside: … 

externally, globalisation based on cooperation and competition is giving way to increasing rivalry, confrontation and even conflict, putting into question the fundamentals underpinning the rules-based international order.  We are also facing important internal challenges as exemplified by Brexit.

In these times of global tectonic changes the EU needs strength and determination to keep unity and to better respond to the expectations of its citizens in the areas of security, economy and social inclusion. ...

The metaphor tectonic changes is interesting. It refers generally to movements in the crustal plates - a type of geological forces that humans can not regulate. But that is a misleading picture. The dramatic challenges "both from within and outside" which the EU experiences today are partly consequences of globalisation - a policy the EU has contributed to and which the concept paper intends to continue. It´s "more Europe", not the much needed decentralisation, the paper seems to advocate:

 ... the essence of political consolidation should be the renewal of cooperation within the EU ...

...greater unity in foreign policy...

...further deepening the Economic and Monetary Union and developing the single market based on our four freedoms...

...Europe as an area without internal borders implementing our comprehensive migration policy and increasing internal security... 

With such EU reforms the "tectonic changes" will continue.

After Valletta summit - still uncertain EU future

On Friday 3 February, before lunch, 28 heads of government agreed a "Malta Declaration by the members of the European Council on the external aspects of migration: addressing the Central Mediterranean route". 

After lunch President Tusk (also) gave some short remarks about the next part of the programme

After this press conference, we will meet to discuss the future of the EU as Joseph Muscat has just mentioned with 27 States and our Rome meeting marking the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

But in fact we have started the discussion on the future of Europe already during our lunch. The developments on the international scene remind us of how important a strong EU is. Transatlantic co-operation remains an absolute priority because it has until now been a key pillar of the free world. At the same time we know that today we have no other option than to regain confidence in our own strength.

Officially that is all we know about the afternnoon discussions so far. The media, however, have reported about uncertainty and disagreement. They can tell that (some) EU leaders are sceptical about PM May´s Atlantic bridge and (some) speek of possible multispeed future after Brexit.

As introduction to the summit Jorge Valero writes in EurActiv that the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaty next month is unlikely to be celebrated with a landmark roadmap for future EU integration, as diverging views continue to undermine efforts to forge a common vision.

Small countries like Malta, Belgium, Luxembourg and southern EU member states, including Italy, Portugal and Spain, are the main backers of the integration process. On the opposite side, Poland, Hungary and others want to reopen EU treaties to repatriate powers to national governments. Britain, meanwhile, is on its way out.

In between, the Netherlands and a growing group of countries are championing a “pragmatic approach”, putting aside “romantic ideas” about Europe.

.....

Support for populists and Eurosceptic parties is picking up steam ahead of crucial elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany, throwing EU integration plans to the sidelines.

“This is not the moment for great forward-looking proposals,” a German diplomat said.

Berlin would accept postponing discussions about ‘ever closer union’, or even the refugee quotas so vigorously opposed by eastern member states for the sake of unity, he explained.

......

People familiar with Jean-Claude Juncker’s thinking said the White Paper the Commission will publish in mid-March as a contribution to the Rome summit is unlikely to outline an ambitious, clear-cut vision for the future.

Instead, it will merely outline different scenarios for the future of Europe. The intention is to avoid polarising national governments that are reluctant to deepen cooperation in fields such as security, migration or the economic and monetary union.

If the 27 EU leaders are unable to produce necessary reformes themselves, may be the Brexit negotiations will be helpful. 

Tusk´s "United we stand, divided we fall" letter

President Tusk has sent a letter to the 27 EU heads of state of government on the future of the EU before the Malta summit 3 February. Here he uses a phrase attributed to the ancient Greek storyteller Aesop - "United we stand, divided we fall" - to emphasize that "more Europe" is the only way forward. He says that despite problems, the European integration has been a success for nearly 60 years. To day, with a more multipolar world and in competition with several continent states, Europe´s only way to avoid internal strife and be competitive is to integrate further.

Tusk is right, separated each of the European countries will be weaker than the continent states. And internal strife will undoubtedly blossom. So it is very important that the European cooperation continues.

But Tusk is also wrong.The integration has caused much trouble and discontent and there is a need for radical changes. It is very strange that he does not argue for another  medicine. The EU member states are different, and will in many cases be best served by formulating their own policies. But they will often do better by cooperation - sometimes even supranational. Perhaps the pressure to get rid of "An ever closer union" is still not big enough, but the EU is unlikely to survive if it does not happen.

The Reformation comes to Valletta on 3 February

The EU is staging a new informal summit on Friday 3 February. 28 heads of state of government will come together in the Maltese capital Valletta. The meeting will consist of two parts. In the morning, the 28 EU heads of state of government will address the external dimension of migration. They are expected to focus their discussions on the Central Mediterranean route and Libya. The UK will then say goodbye, and the afternoon will be an occasion for the remaining 27 leaders to prepare for the upcoming 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties on 25 March 2017.

The afternoon event will be a continuation of the political reflection on the future of the European Union, which started after the UK Brexit referundum 23 June last year and so far has resulted in the Bratislava declaration. On 16 September, when the 27 leaders met in Bratislava they ".. committed .. to offer to our citizens in the upcoming months a vision of an attractive EU they can trust and support." They set out the general principles for action

*focusing on citizens' expectations and  serving better their need  *improving communication and cooperation between member              *states delivering on promises and making the EU 27 a success

Leaders also agreed on the Bratislava Roadmap, which will guide EU action over the next months. After Malta the 27 leaders will conclude the reflection process in Rome on 25 March 2017, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties.

With the election of Donald Trump as US President the context of both the migration policy and EU reforms has changed dramatically. And with Brexit uncertainties and forthcoming elections in several European countries this year the EU future seems more unpredictable than ever. Andrew Rettmann  provides a summary of the situation in the EU Observer.

The Spinning Wheel of Nationalism-Globalism

After years with escalating globalism the nationalists managed to win two important games in 2016. Brexit and Trump. Used to sailing downwind the globalists have got a powerful headwind.  How do they handle it ?

Afraid of a nationalist Geert Wilder victory in the forthcoming Dutch elections globalist Dutch PM Rutte took the gloves off and preached a more "populist" view in front of the Davos elite. In a clash with former European Parliament President and hardcore globalist Martin Schulz he advocated a pragmatic approach and to stop lofty speeches. Rutte called for tangible results on migration, security or the internal market in the effort to create jobs. He even went as far to say that the ‘ever closer union’ principle is “buried and gone”. Schultz counterattacked by praising the achievements of the past and the need to push forward EU integration. So while some hope and believe Brexit and Trump will unite the 27 remaining EU member countries further, a more divided Union is perhaps more likely.

And in the UK globalist and Brexit conductor May is leaving 10 Downing Street for talks with nationalist President Trump. The Prime Minister will also address the annual congressional Republican Retreat in Philadelphia and say that the UK and USA will “renew the special relationship” now that President Trump is in the White House. In her speech, Mrs May will compare President Trump’s election to the Brexit referendum, making clear that both votes represent a chance to “renew” America and Britain. May is also expected to say that “.. as we rediscover our confidence together, as you renew your nation just as we renew ours, we have the opportunity – indeed the responsibility – to renew the special relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again.”

The clashes between the nationalists and globalists will continue and might be tougher than they are today. But hopefully the spinning wheel of dialogue and combat will unite the threads in a fruitful compromise.

PM May´s Brexit speech

PM May had chosen Lancaster House as the venue for her Brexit speech two days ago. It is an historic building, which has been used in many important occasions. The European Advisory Commission had its seat there, and started its work on 14 January 1944. This commission, with participation from the UK, the US and the Sovjet Union, was to study the postwar political problems in Europe and make recommendations to the three governments. The recommendations of the EAC shaped the development of postwar Europe. And in 1988 PM Thatcher held her "Europe Open for Business" speech there, extolling the virtues of the Single Market.

Now May will have a Brexit which takes the UK out of the Single Market. She will instead negotiate a trade agreement. And if she not can get a good agreement, she will leave the EU without an agreement. This is PM May´s master plan for Brexit. The EU says this was expected and that the negotiations will be very, very, very difficult.

And there is no doubt that the negotiations will be difficult. Very much is at stake. But there seems to be a broad understanding that the process must go on and that the goal must be to achieve a solution which benefits both the UK and the EU. This is about a reshaping of Europe. The EU cooperation will only survive if the member states and their citizens see it as positive. The EU must give added value - otherwise it is doomed to fail.

Paris Mideast conference not very successful for peace - but perhaps helpful for French Socialist Party

A year ago, in January 2016, France announced its intensions to push for new negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, and in June the country hosted diplomats from the west and the Arab world to work on organising a peace conference by the end of the year that would launch long-dormant Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The peace conference was held in Paris yesterday, with participation from around 70 countries and organisations. But neither Israel or the Palestinians were present. 

The conference is widely seen as a last-ditch attempt to save the two-state solution ahead of Donald Trump's investiture as US president. Dispite a joint declaration which reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace, the initiative will hardly stimulate the peace process. For example the requirement that Israel should fully end end the occupation that began in 1967 seems unrealistic. UK did not back the communique and also the Australian government has distanced itself from the concluding statement. The statement might be the basis for a UN resolution this week, without the hope of peace thus become larger.

Perhaps the conference will be of greater importance for the organizer. With a Muslim share of 8 % of France´s population, yesterdays event and a possible UN resolution can be helpful for the Socialist Party in the forthcoming presidential election.