Flashlight Europe N°7–09 July 2015. Greece After the Referendum: Three Possible Scenarios for the Euro Area

About ten days ago Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, announced that there was going to be a referendum, and thus terminated the negotiations on a new rescue package unilaterally. Since then the euro area has been plunged into a wholly unprecedented political crisis. Whether or not Greece can re-main in the monetary union is more uncertain than ever, and decisions that can give a new twist to the political and financial situation are being made almost every day. The Greek banks have been closed for over a week. The economic data are deteriorating rapidly. And yet a solution is nowhere to be seen. The No vote in the Greek referendum has not exactly improved the chances of reaching an agree-ment. For the time being the positions seem to have become uncompromising. At the summit of the heads of state and government on 7 July the Greek government was given five days and a “final deadline” in order to come up with viable proposals for reform. Thus the next few days are of crucial im-portance. At the weekend the heads of state and government of all 28 EU member states are going to meet in order to decide the future of Greece. This flashlight europe provides an overview of the events of the last few days, outlines possible scenarios for what may happen in the near future, and identifies factors which may exert an influence in the short term. We are not trying to give an exact forecast or to formulate action recommendations. But we are trying to shed some light on a confusing situation by identifying important patterns and some of the salient factors.

The 2015 Greek Referendum. EPIN Commentary No. 24, 3 July 2015

The Greek government called a snap referendum on the proposals advanced by the EU partners and creditor, i.e. the draft Agreement submitted by the EU/IMF to the Eurogroup of 25 June 2015. There has been a major controversy among Greek constitutional lawyers about whether this referendum meets constitutional requirements. No doubt, the constitutional validity of this referendum could be challenged on pure normative terms (nature of the question, time limit); yet this shock call for a referendum appeared as the only political solution for the Greek government facing the dilemma of whether to take the plunge of having five-months of negotiations transformed into a negative-sum game.

To be in, or to be out: reflections on the Danish referendum. EPIN Commentary No. 29, 10 December 2015

In this EPIN Commentary, Catharina Sørensen offers her reflections on Denmark’s referendum, held on December 3rd, on whether the country should change its blanket opt-out on all justice and home affairs cooperation in the EU to the more nuanced opt-in model adopted by the UK and Ireland. In her view, the outcome reflected the two separate ‘languages’ deployed in the public debate over the referendum – the emotional discussion about sovereignty, which appealed to the heart, and the technical argument about cooperation, which appealed to reason. In using these two languages, the campaigners spoke past one another, failed to understand each other and divided Denmark into two opposing camps.

The Dutch Referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: Legal options for navigating a tricky and awkward situation. CEPS Commentary, 8 April 2016

In an advisory referendum held in the Netherlands on April 6th, over 61% of the voters rejected the ratification of the Association Agreement (AA) between the EU and Ukraine. If the Dutch government were to act on the outcome of the referendum, which had a low turnout of 32%, an unprecedented situation would emerge in which an EU international agreement cannot enter into force because a member state is not in a position to ratify it. Although the political character of this referendum and the Dutch Advisory Referendum Act (DRA) and the geopolitical implications of the AA itself have already been the subject of heated discussions in the Netherlands and beyond, the legal implications of this referendum remain unclear.

Information Guide: The EU Referendum, 23 June 2016. The United Kingdom and the European Union. A guide to information sources July 2016

A guide to information sources on the 'Brexit Debate' in the United Kingdom - the decision to hold a referendum in the United Kingdom on the 23 June 2016 as to whether the country should remain or leave the European Union. The guide is a structured listing of information sources from the EU, the UK government, UK Parliament, the main campaigning groups, think tanks, news sources and other sources on this important topic. Note that the images within the guide are all hyperlinks to the full text of the sources. The guides is being constantly updated during 2016.

Too cold to handle: EU accession talks with Iceland. CEPS Commentary, 3 June 2013

Recent opinion polls suggest that most Icelanders are against joining the EU. By the same token, however, a majority of those polled are in favour of continuing accession talks. These results show that Iceland’s relationship with the EU is a deeply divisive issue within the country. Although no date for the referendum has been set, the new centre-right coalition may thus want to settle this matter as soon as possible. Should there indeed be a majority in support of continuing negotiations, then Iceland’s accession process will become a complicated and cool affair in the hands of an anti-EU membership coalition government.

British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part I: ‘Competences about right, so far’. EPIN Working Paper No. 35, October 2013

The first in a series for a CEPS-EPIN project entitled “The British Question and the Search for a Fresh European Narrative” this paper is pegged on an ambitious ongoing exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union. The intention is that this should provide a basis for informed debate before the referendum on the UK remaining in the EU or not, which is scheduled for 2017. This paper summarises the first six reviews, each of which runs to around 80 pages, covering foreign policy, development policy, taxation, the single market, food safety, and public health. The present authors then add their own assessments of these materials. While understandably giving due place to British interests, they are of general European relevance. The substantive conclusions of this first set of reviews are that the competences of the EU are judged by respondents to be ‘about right’ on the whole, which came as a surprise to eurosceptic MPs and the tabloid media. Our own view is that the reviews are objective and impressively researched, and these populist complaints are illustrating the huge gap between the views of informed stakeholders and general public opinion, and therefore also the hazard of subjecting the ‘in or out’ choice for decision by referendum. If the referendum is to endorse the UK’s continuing membership there will have to emerge some fresh popular narratives about the EU. The paper therefore concludes with some thoughts along these lines, both for the UK and the EU as a whole.

Lisbon Fado: The European Union under Reform

From the Introduction. To address the uncertainties surrounding the Treaty of Lisbon, this book examines several issues from various angles. Regardless of the results of the second referendum in Ireland and the pending ratifications in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany, the European Union (EU) will not be the same after the Lisbon Treaty. If it comes into effect, Europeans will enter into a new stage in the deepening of the integration process; if it is rejected, the first decade of the 21st Century will represent a period of institutional stagnation in Europe’s integration. Nonetheless, the chapters in this book share the consensus that, despite its limitations, the Lisbon Treaty will make the EU decision making process more efficient, enhance regional democracy and strengthen its international voice.

Cameron’s reality check on Europe. EPIN [Working] Paper No. 38, 15 April 2014

Ever since Prime Minister David Cameron made his major speech on Europe on 23 January 2013, in which he argued for some kind of new deal between the UK and the EU, the rest of the EU as well as the British public have been wondering what he would actually propose in operational terms. On 15 March 2014, the Prime Minister offered at least an interim reply to these questions in an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. This paper extracts from the Daily Telegraph article the main ideas that the Prime Minister advances. In all, 10 propositions are identified, presented in the precise language used, followed by an appraisal. The article has not attracted so much attention, mainly because its content is not particularly sensational, but that is its real importance and quality. It points the way towards resolving what otherwise would mean a huge political crisis for the UK and the EU. The Prime Minister gave the overall impression that he is not now heading towards making an impossibly difficult list of demands. On the contrary, an informed and moderate realism seems to be in the making. The package outlined in this paper could be sold in Brussels. There would then have to be a robust communications campaign to sell it to the British public. This paper is part of a series for a CEPS-EPIN project on “The British Question and the Search for a Fresh European Narrative”, which is pegged to an ambitious ongoing exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union. The intention is that this should provide a basis for informed debate before the referendum on the UK remaining in the EU or not, which is scheduled for 2017.

British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part II: Again, a huge contradiction between the evidence and Eurosceptic populism. EPIN Paper No. 40, June 2014

This paper is the second in a series for a CEPS project entitled “The British Question and the Search for a Fresh European Narrative”. It is pegged on an ambitious exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union on the basis of evidence submitted by independent stakeholders. In all, 32 sectoral policy reviews are being produced over the period 2013-2015, as input into public information and debate leading up to a referendum on whether the UK should remain in, or secede from, the EU, planned for 2017. This second set of reviews covers a broad range of EU policies (for the single market for goods, external trade, transport policy, environment, climate change, research, asylum, non-EU immigration, civil judicial cooperation, tourism, culture and sport). The findings confirm what emerged from the first set of reviews, namely that there is little or no case for repatriation of EU competences at the level they are defined in the treaties. This does not exclude that at a more detailed level there can be individual actions or laws that might be done better or not at all. However, that is the task of all the institutions to work at on a regular basis, and hardly a rationale for secession. For the UK in particular the EU has shown considerable flexibility in agreeing to special arrangements, such as in the case of the policies here reviewed of asylum, non-EU immigration and civil judicial cooperation. In other areas reviewed here, such as the single market for goods, external trade, transport, environment, climate change and research, there is a good fit between the EU’s policies and UK priorities, with the EU perceived by stakeholders as an ‘amplifier’ of British interests.

Could an independent Scotland join the European Union? EPC Policy Brief, 28 May, 2014

The people of Scotland vote on 18 September 2014 in a referendum on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" The Scottish Government aims, if the result is 'yes', for Scotland to become independent in March 2016 and to join the main international organisations including the European Union. Would that be possible? How could Scotland join the EU? What is the link between Scotland's referendum on independence and a British referendum on EU membership?

Turkey votes: Part I - The storm before the election. EPC Commentary, 26 March 2014

At an election rally on 20 March 2014, Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declared he wanted to “root out Twitter, no matter what the international community thought”. A few hours later Twitter was shut down. The decision backfired. Turkey’s some 12 million Twitter users immediately found ways to circumnavigate the ban; it highlighted the increasingly authoritarian trend of Erdoğan; and it brought immediate condemnation from numerous foreign leaders. The move has been viewed by many Turks as part of an operation to cover up a corruption probe that has consumed Turkey since 17 December, before key local elections on 30 March. The elections, which will be followed by Presidential election in August and political ones expected in 2015, have become a referendum on Erdoğan’s popularity, and are set to shape Turkey’s political landscape. A lot is at stake as a big win for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) may not only be used by Erdoğan to justify his response to the corruption scandal but also risks consolidating his increasingly authoritarian style of governance.

Turkey votes: Part II - Erdoğan reloaded. EPC Commentary, 3 April 2014

On 30 March, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) scooped a significant victory in local elections, taking almost 44 percent of the vote despite accusations of corruption, undermining the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms. While there have been claims of election fraud and the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), has demanded recounts in several cities including Istanbul and Ankara, it is clear that even allowing for some level of fraud the win was substantial and more than most people expected. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has reached a juncture. He has two choices: return to the path of democracy after a period of democratic back-sliding which included passing several controversial reforms such as a new internet law which led to the recent banning of Twitter and Youtube; or alternatively he can forge ahead with his much talked of revenge campaign against those he has accused of creating a “parallel state” and conspiring to remove him from power. Given that Erdoğan viewed this election as a referendum on his popularity and leadership there is a serious risk that he will do the latter; using the significant mandate given to him to do whatever he wants, including further cracking down on democracy.