nEUwsletter 14/10/2019

Catalonia protests after the conviction of the independence leaders

By Laura Samy

https://www.maxpixel.net/Waving-Catalonia-Catalunya-Catalan-Flag-Senyera-2123796

On Monday 14th October, the Spanish Supreme Court sentenced nine Catalan leaders for sedition and the misuse of public fund, over their role in 2017 failed bid for independence. The court handed stiff jail’s sentences of between 9 and 13 years. 

For the record, the leaders were sentenced due to their role in the organization of an independence referendum on the 1st of October 2017. The Spanish government has pledged to stop a poll that was declared illegal by the supreme court. Despite this, the referendum was organized and occurred clashes with police who attempted to prevent the vote from taking place. The result of the referendum showed that 90% of Catalan wanted the independence of their region but the turnout was only 43%. 

Against the heavy sentences, thousands of people took to the streets of Barcelona. Since Monday, a lot of demonstrations took place in the region like general strike or peaceful marches bringing the city center of Barcelona to a standstill. If the demonstration during the day are quite calm, the nights are marked by violence and quarrels with the police. 

Sources : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/18/catalonia-general-strike-protests-independence https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50098268 https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/10/18/pourquoi-la-catalogne-connait-des-manifestations-massives_6016072_3210.html

France' opposition to membership negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia

By Charles Elie-Martin

Bruxelles, le 18 octobre 2019. REUTERS/Johanna Geron

On Tuesday 15th October, the Council was held in Luxembourg to discuss the opening of membership negotiations with two Western Balkans countries: Albania and North Macedonia. The outcome of this meeting was in disfavor of formal negotiations with the countries aforesaid, a position that was reinforced at the end of the European Council held on the 17th and 18th of October. In order to understand the situation described, a quick reminder of the process leading a country to become a member State of the European Union is welcomed.

How a country may become a member State of the EU?A membership application to the EU is a long and complex process based on a dialogue between the European institutions and the applicant country. First, the pre-accession step consists in the signature of an association agreement allowing the EU to provide support to the candidate in several internal reforms (politics, economy, human rights...). These are aiming to meet the criteria required by the EU. The second step is the formal application for membership. The Commission addresses an opinion on the candidate's ability to enter into negotiations. The opening of these negotiations is subject to the Council's agreement through an unanimity vote. Finally, the concrete negotiations may begin with the opening and the study of various chapters of law, whose purpose is to study the applicant's capacity to execute EU law. This is only once all the chapters are validated and closed that the candidate becomes a member State.

To what stage are North Macedonia and Albania at the moment?North Macedonia and Albania have both signed an association agreement in the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process. Therefore, these countries are both official candidates since, respectively, 2005 and 2014. The two candidates' advancement in the negotiation process, although long, was encouraging given the EU member States' will to formally open the chapters of law.However, four member States, namely France, Netherlands, Spain and Denmark, expressed their opposition during the Council's vote of the 15th October regarding Albania. Only one member State, France, voted ''no'' on the North Macedonia case.

Implications and consequences of the vote. The first justification provided is that all the conditions stated in the association agreement are not fulfilled. In the case of Albania, the unfinished reform of the judicial system and the, still intricate, struggle against corruption led the member States cited above to reject the opening of further negotiations. However, some political commentators found that the refusal was explained by the consequences on immigration in the case of an integration of Albania. As a response, some member States such as Germany expressed their disappointment on the subject. Likewise, the EU institutions leaders disapproved this refusal, starting with the president of the European Council Donald Tusk who considered the rejection as a mistake.

The second justification was brought by the French President Emmanuel Macron. According to him, the EU ''should do more to help those countries develop, not just make pledges''. Therefore, the refusal objected by France may be seen as its expression of will to reform the accession process. Nevertheless, this implies some grave and unfair consequences for the candidates, especially North Macedonia who has been an official candidate for 14 years. Indeed, this country passed major reforms, including a constitutional one earlier this year aiming to change the State's name, evolving from Macedonia to North Macedonia, as this was a source of conflict with Greece.

Finally, France's position is the emanation of the opposition between two schools of thoughts regarding the enlargement of the EU: deepening and widening. The first, supported by France, promotes the notion of an ''ever closer union'' by encouraging an advanced integration between the current member States. As opposed, the second one puts the EU expansion in terms of memberships at the center of the european integration. A summit on the Western Balkans in May 2020 and all the debates surrounding this event will be the opportunity to discuss the future of the EU in terms of enlargement.

The EU reaction to the Turkish offensive in Syria

By Emmanuel Jeanny

Smoke rises from the Syrian town of Ras al-Ain, a target of Turkey's military operation against Kurdish forces, on October 15, 2019. Ozan Kose, AFP

On Wednesday 16th October, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan launched a military offensive in the north of Syria, where the minority of Kurdish lives. Erdogan claimed that the goal of this offensive is to secure the border, he twitted “Our mission is to prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border, and to bring peace to the area”. In reality it’s a pretext to prevent the back basis of the Turkish Kurdish, he wants to neutralise the Syrian Kurdish, he wants to prevent separatism or even autonomy.

After this offensive, the international community reacted including the European Union.First, the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker called on Turkey to immediately cease the operation and urged restraint from all sides.German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas condemned the offensive "in the strongest possible terms," and called on Ankara to end the operation and pursue its security interests peacefully. He also added that "Turkey is condoning the further destabilization of the region while risking a resurgence of IS."

In a meeting in Luxembourg, all the European foreign ministers condemned this military offensive, but they didn’t agree on a bloc-wide arms embargo. By a joint statement, they declared that "The EU condemns Turkey's military action, which seriously undermines the stability and the security of the whole region, resulting in more civilians suffering and further displacement and severely hindering access to humanitarian assistance". The European Union also called on Turkey to "cease the unilateral military action."On the humanitarian side, the French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian declared that “this offensive is going to cause serious humanitarian devastation".

Following those reactions, actions to match these were taken by some countries, Germany and France, along with Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands, have halted arms exports to Turkey."Given the background of the Turkish military offensive in north-eastern Syria, the Federal Government will not issue any new permits for any military equipment that could be used in Syria by Turkey," declared the German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas.France announced that they were also suspending arms exports to Turkey. For the French government, the Turkish offensive in Syria is a threat to European security.

In front of this reaction, the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Cavusoglu strengthened his position and declared that any arms embargo would only make Turkey stronger.However, confronted to international and especially American pressure, Ankara has declared Thursday a ceasefire in Syria for 5 days.

Source : DW news

The DUP and the new Brexit deal

By Thomas Lezeau

Last Thursday, 17th of October, news broke out in the morning: the British government lead by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the European Union have reached an agreement on the terms on which the United Kingdom is set to leave the EU and its common market on October the 31st. Although this deal may end up being seen as Johnson’s greatest political victory yet, the hardest remains to be done. For the deal to take place, it first needs to be voted for by both Parliaments in Brussels as well as in Westminster. The favourable vote of the latter seems particularly uncertain for the time being as the Democratic Unionist Party or DUP from Northern Ireland, although part of the central government’s conservative coalition, is firmly opposed to this new deal. As stated by the DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was “Too eager by far to get a deal at any cost” and therefore DUP will be unable to back the governments deal plan when voting takes place on Saturday October the 19th.

The reason behind this refusal is that this deal would weaken the DUP’s position in its own local assembly. To understand why, we first need to take a quick look at the contents of the deal agreed upon between EU and British executives. One major changing point compared to Theresa May’s deal is the disappearing of the backstop plan for Northern Ireland, something Johnson has always claimed to oppose. Instead, the new deal intends the whole of UK leaving the EU customs union though goods shall be checked whistle going through the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Furthermore, the deal also plans for Northern Ireland to keep the EU standards and laws concerning the regulation on goods, thus enabling a soft border to remain for goods transiting between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the south.

Acknowledging the fact that this deal will have a direct impact on the northern Irish, forcing them to remain under some European Union rules, the agreement between the British government and the EU has planned to let the Northern Irish Assembly – known as the Stormont- vote on the keeping of the provisions four years after the end of the transition period so around January 2025. Since the good Friday agreement of 1998, decisions taken by the Stormont must be voted by cross community, meaning that both unionists – mostly the protestant part of the northern Irish population that want to remain in the UK- and nationalists – essentially the catholic part of the population that would like to see Ireland reunited in one country- need to vote for a measure for it to be adopted. This is made to ensure that both Catholics and Protestants get a say in the bipolarized Northern Irish society. However, the agreement between British government and the EU has planned that a simple majority-and not a cross-community consent- in the voting that should take place in 2025 would keep the special arrangements in place for four more years. This is something that the DUP sees as unconceivable because it would be regarded as a medium term split between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom at least on customs and goods regulation rules and could even lead on a longer term to a reunification of both Irelands, the least enviable scenario for the adamant unionists of the DUP.

Furthermore, since the 2017 legislative elections the unionists have lost their numerical majority in Stormont for the first time in the history of the assembly. This showcases the delicate situation in which the political party is and a potential inability to vote against the keeping of the arrangements from the agreement in January 2025 if they don’t win back a numerical majority to veto them.

All in all the House of Commons vote on Boris Johnson’s deal on Saturday October the 19th will be decisive for the future of the United Kingdom. In order to get his deal through, the Prime Minister needs 320 MP votes and can only count on 287 voting conservative MPs. Although most of the 35 independent MPs should vote for his deal, some Tori MPs are predicted to go rogue making the outcome of the vote quite uncertain. The 10 DUP MPs missing votes might end up costing Boris Johnson the vote…