27th edition – EU – Pike & Hurricane

Everything You Wanted to Know about the EU but Were Afraid to Ask

Yaroslav Mikhaylov — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:14:29 +0000

It seems like over the last year, between the refugee crisis and the Brexit referendum, everyone has opinions on the politics and the structure of the European Union. For those of you who have been out of the loop but want to join in the conversation, we’ve answered some basic questions about how the EU works to get you started.

Q: What is the EU, really?

A: That is a complicated question and the answer depends on the context in which it is being discussed. It is not a single country, though it can occasionally act as such in some international negotiations and there exists an EU citizenship. However, it is more than just a series of treaties between the 28 member countries, since it has its own governing bodies, elections and areas of competency. It is, ultimately, a novel and, so far, unique form of international organization, which is part of what makes it sometimes difficult to understand.

Q: What does the EU actually do?

A: This question has come up often: what has the EU done for us recently? There are many different ways in which the EU affects ordinary life. The primary way is through the internal market: making it as easy for people, goods, services and capital to move between EU countries as within them. This allows citizens of any EU country to live, work or study in any other one, and requires a complex set of rules in order for it to be both feasible and fair. The EU also acts as a partner on many infrastructure, research or conservation projects in member states. Parts of the Malmö Central Station were built using EU funds, for example.

Q: Is the EU a democracy or is it run by bureaucrats?

A: Another complex question: it is, to some extent, both. Proponents point to the direct elections to The European Parliament and the fact that it is the nations’ elected governments that select members of the Council of Ministers. Critics, however, note that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice are not elected, but are instead appointed by representatives of the member states. Also important to note is the low turnout: only 42.61% of eligible voters voted last election and in some nations the number was as low as 13%. So whether you consider the EU to be a fully democratic federation or run by men in smoke-filled rooms, there is a good argument to be made.

Q: Does the EU come in and tell nations what to do?

A: The EU is often criticized for getting involved in the domestic affairs of the member states, but it does not do so wherever and however it wills. The EU and the member states have delineated areas of competence. The EU is allowed a free hand only when it concerns the common market and its operations, including things like monetary policy and competition rules. On matters like tourism, industry or education the EU has to cooperate with states in accomplishing what it wants, and is not at all allowed to interfere with states’ research or foreign aid initiatives. However, in most areas, such as transport, the environment or consumer protection, the EU member states only hold precedence until the EU decides to make laws, at which point the EU law takes precedence. Ultimately, that means that over time, the EU’s area of influence over laws has grown, which has made its perceived intrusions easier to criticize.

Q: Did the EU really make a law about how curved bananas must be?

A: Yes, but it was far less egregious than it has since been portrayed. Regulation No. 2257/94 clarified how different grades of bananas were to be marketed. Specifically, it required that the highest-grade bananas should be free from ‘abnormal curvature’ without defining what, exactly, that meant. This, however, was interpreted by some commentators as a hopeless attempt to standardize the infinite variety of nature. Ironically, the similar regulation for cucumbers has mostly avoided scrutiny, despite specifying a limit on curvature of 10 millimeters per every 10 centimeters of length.

Yaroslav Mikhaylov

Cover photo: Niccolò Caranti, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Image 1: Rock Cohen, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Image 2: Yaroslav Mikhaylov, own work

Image 3: Kevin O’Mara, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

The post Everything You Wanted to Know about the EU but Were Afraid to Ask appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Terror in Europe: Extremism from Both Sides

Leticia Santos — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 15:18:36 +0000

During 2015 Western Europe has suffered an increase in attacks from jihadist groups as well as the violent acts of anti-Islamic groups. After the recent jihadist attacks in Belgium and France, extremism keeps posing a complex challenge for the European Union and its citizens; as it affects security in general and raises questions of migration, ethnic and religious minorities in Europe. Several EU nations were targets of extremist violence (jihadist and right-wing) that has led to considerable negative impacts for European society; creating fear as well as breeding violence and prejudice.

According to the 2016 Europol report (TE-SAT 2016), The a significant increase of jihadist terrorism occurred recently, a jump from 4 jihadist attacks in 2004 to 17 attacks in 2015 was registered. In addition, a jump from zero to 9 right-wing terrorist was also reported by Europol. Two extreme ideologies that oppose each other are directly impacting today’s Europe however neither of them are impacting positively the future of EU.

Jihadist Terror

During last year the total number of jihadist attacks against an EU member state was seventeen; of which fifteen were in France and two in Denmark; These attacks were responsible for 150 victims and many injured persons. This year, twelve jihadist attacks were reported, of which six were in Germany, four in France and one in Belgium. The total number of fatalities are so far 126 fatalities and many others severely injured.

According to an article by Quintan Wiktorowicz, a former White House security adviser, jihadism is rooted in the belief that a “struggle” is a necessity to remove the obstacles to reestablishing “God’s rule” on Earth and protecting the Muslim community. The long-term complex geopolitical conflicts involving EU member states and terrorist groups could be one of the strongest reasons for jihadism in Europe. For instance several counter-terrorism missions are significant measures of security of French foreign policy, as French authorities state that “France and French interests have been the target of international terrorism linked to the situation in the Near and Middle East in the 1980s (…) and international jihadist networks close to or inspired by Al-Qaeda since the 2001 attacks in the United States and the subsequent war on terror.”

Right-wing Terrorism

Europol also reported an increase in violent attacks inside several EU member states that were classified as right-wing terrorism. Some of these countries did not previously suffer from jihadist attacks but yet the growing number of anti-islamic sentiment is considerable.

In the aftermath of the deaths of twelve journalists in January 2015, right-wing attacks took place against a Jewish supermarket, six mosques and a restaurant. Several local mosques were targets of gunshots in Port-la- Nouvelle, Albi, Saint Júery, Vendôme, Soissons and Digne-les-Bain. Another right wing incident in France occurred at a kebab shop near a mosque which used an improvised explosive device.

According to the 2016 Europol report, anti-immigration and anti-Islam views remain a vital focus of right-wing extremists. The German domestic intelligence service 2015 report also reports that jihadist terror has led right-wing extremists to be able to extend their anti-Islam and anti-immigration propaganda, in addition to sensationalizing the threat by spinning it as an “ethnic-cultural conflict”.

Islamophobia: A Reaction to Terrorism?

Over the decades, anti-Islamic views have been at the core of right-wing nationalists’ agenda, this view is deeply rooted on the idea of us versus them and a clear distinction between the two. According to right-wing movements, Europe is being “invaded” by migrants and therefore will be “Islamified” by muslim migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. The starting process of this narrative is the mass migration that followed WWII, and now uses recent migration – especially Syrian and North African refugee flows from conflict areas or poor zones – to argue against this invasion. The idea of migration as an insidious process is generally accepted and it is opposed to a humanitarian one.

In 2015, Islamophobic offenses targeting the Muslim community in general have increased, according to Europol. In Poland, for instance, a man was arrested for conspiring to set fire on a mosque. In addition, the Polish police arrested 13 members of the right-wing extremist group Blood & Honour. Many materials related to fascism were found, as well as live ammunition and air weapons.

Violence against refugees and asylum seekers has also increased. According to Europol, “EU Member States have increasingly reported that the far-right try to exploit the current migration crisis in an effort to obtain support and stoke resentment.”. In other words, in order to gain political support, the right-wing movement and political parties are exploiting the current refugee crisis and economic issues to spread and support their ideologies. Some parties are against hosting refugees while others are advocating for white and Christian religious dominance.

Europol also reported that by the end of 2015, the German Interior Ministry reported that more than 800 attacks against Muslim properties occurred, in comparison to 198 in 2014. These incidents range from vandalism to arson. Most of these attacks were classified as anti-immigrant right-wing. In addition, a relevant share of these incidents were carried out either by perpetrators that remain unknown, or by individuals or small groups with no direct links to right-wing extremism.

The jihadist attacks did play a significant role for reinforcing the propaganda and attention of right-wing ideologies but certainly did not originally cause the rise of right-wing extremism. One can further argue that in contrast with Jihadist terror, which is inflicted by direct violence, the violence perpetrated by right-wing groups affects mostly structures of society, for instance adopting anti-immigration policies or integration processes.

The local population’s sentimental reactions of these attacks are clear: fear and anger. Eventually, each side of the population will construct an enemy’s face. “The domino effect of terror” is the chain of reaction caused by fear. The sentiments of revolt combined with a desire for justice can create the continuous effect of violence towards both Europeans and Muslims; as victims or perpetrators.

Leticia Santos

Image 1: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. cylonfingers. Mural symbolizing extremism in Shoreditch, London.

The post Terror in Europe: Extremism from Both Sides appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Australian Case For EU Membership

Taminka Hanscamp — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:49:54 +0000

I’m Australian, not Austrian but please let me in on the EU. There are marked differences between the two countries, not least of which is that Australia is an island continent 14,000 kilometres away from Europe. However, this geographic logic did not stop Australia joining the Eurovision song contest in 2015. Indeed, Australia fully embraced Eurovision but the country seems much more reticent to participate in matters of international politics. I concede that Australia will never become an EU Member, nor would this actually be appropriate given the geography. However, by considering the Australian consequences of not being a part of such a body, this article illustrates how an EU model would be of significant value in addressing the issues facing the international community.

Photo: Naomi Wolfers. Australian’s overcoming the time difference to dress up, get together and celebrate Eurovision 2015.

The benefits of EU Membership are pertinent to consider at a time when another contest about the ‘Euro[pean] vision’ is playing out on a much broader stage in European and international politics. Underpinning the EU is the idea that international cooperation is both necessary and beneficial for economic, political and security purposes. In reality it might not achieve these ends, be efficient or even be understandable. However what makes it different from other international bodies that share similar goals is that the EU remains unique in its authority over its members. This perceived relinquishment of individual state autonomy has contributed to the momentum of Euro-skepticism. However, it is necessary to consider how this also provides an important strength. This can be seen by comparing the Australian and EU responses to the pressing issues of climate change and the human rights treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

Climate change poses a very real threat to the globe and its effects have no respect for national boundaries. It is recognised that strong, international action is required to address it. However, without effective and binding frameworks that encourage shared responsibility, this is difficult to achieve.

Australia has been accused of withdrawing from international cooperation on the issue, favouring unilateral action instead. This came after Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott removed climate change from the topics of discussion at the 2014 G20 conference hosted in Brisbane and repealed a tax on carbon emissions. Even if unilateral action was enough it still requires action. Australia had designed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2007, and many other countries now also have variations of an ETS including the EU. However in Australia, it never passed. Domestic political tensions meant that it was dropped off the agenda along with the prime minister who suggested it. The reasons for back-pedalling on environmental protection measures were primarily economic: to introduce an ETS would have put Australia at a comparative market disadvantage with its regional trading partners. Taking action on climate change has therefore been equated with being detrimental to national industry.

The EU model with its single market and ability to pass binding resolutions is in a better position to guarantee action and share responsibility, at the very least it can hold conversations about the issue with its members. Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) the EU has implemented an ETS and is on track to meet a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. In addition to the EU wide policies member states have established domestic programs that complement or extend their international and european commitments. Sweden for example has committed to having no net GHG emissions by 2050. Where EU energy law is not respected the EU Commission can begin enforcement procedures calling for compliance through the European Court of justice.

International commitments such as the Paris Agreement are also an important form of international cooperation but perhaps are still not enough. International law is often said to be ‘non-binding’. International convention relies on the fact that the embarrassment and reaction of respective parties will be enough to encourage the compliance of the other. The problem in Australia is that this is apparently not motivating enough.

Enter Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker system. For human rights to be meaningful they need to be respected regardless of domestic political agendas. However, the framework of international law makes it difficult to ensure this happens as incorporation into domestic law is at the behest of individual nations. The importance of recognition at law of rights is crucial. Members of the EU must, at least on paper, domestically incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, which is accountable to the European Court of Human Rights. This can be contrasted to the position in Australia where there is little legal protection of rights.

The mechanisms used to process and treat asylum seekers is increasingly becoming a challenge especially in Europe. This is because the numbers of people coming are overwhelming existing and imagined systems. It appears that the bigger the problem the more tempting to implement harsher, sweeping and dehumanising policies. It is vital that whatever approaches are adopted across Europe, that they uphold human rights. At the moment there is some guarantee of this occurring. The scale of the issue in Australia is markedly less, yet extremely harsh measures have been implemented to achieve a deterrence based system. Adopting this ‘stop the boats’ policy, that is not subject to domestic or binding international human rights protections, has resulted in multiple findings of human rights breaches by the UN and other organisations and the harm continues. The Australian system detains Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) on offshore processing centres and settlement in Australia will never be an option for those who arrived ‘illegally’ by boat. Upon the release of a report finding human rights abuses against torture, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott simply said Australians were ‘sick of being lectured to by the UN’.

International cooperation is always going to be difficult where domestic interests have to be balanced against each other. However, its pursuit is still necessary and worthy precisely because if left to domestic political interests the action and responsibility sharing required to deal with the issues of the 21st century is undermined and the results are ugly. Australia provides a case example of the dangers of not being involved, so whilst the EU might not be perfect it should not be abandoned.

Taminka Hanscamp

Image 1: Bernard Spragg, Public Domain

Image 2: Naomi Wolfers, Instagram

The post The Australian Case For EU Membership appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Brexit from a New Perspective: British-Bangladeshi Reactions to the Discussion of Immigration

Emilia Henkel — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:06:46 +0000

Complex questions and important decisions

On the 23rd of June, the British people voted on a very important decision, a decision that would determine the country’s future: Leave or Remain in the European Union. Even though this is an incredibly complex question, touching on all parts of social life and organisation, the Vote Leave campaign managed to steer the discussions to one single omnipotent problem: immigration. It seemed to be addressing a need to talk in the British society. In the past decades Britain has taken a multicultural approach in its policies dealing with immigration. However in the mid-2000s the discourse about culture, cultural differences and the cultural heritage of immigrants changed, with Gordon Brown opening up a discussion on Britishness.

Journey to England

Questions of national belonging and identity continuously resurfaced during my journey through England in June 2016. I was meeting with British-Bangladeshis to talk about their relation to their country of origin in the context of their life in England. The month of June was, from a wider political point of view, a very interesting time to travel, since issues of immigration and assimilation discussed by people in the streets, in pubs and at academic lectures related to the topic of my journey. While I was in England, I interviewed British-Bangladeshis in Manchester and London about their perception of and relation to Bangladesh transforming over the years in the diaspora. My interviewees were very different in terms of their age, gender, profession and their relationship with England. Inevitably, we came to talk about Brexit and the related discussion about immigration, even though I didn’t ask any structured questions about it during our interviews. In this article, I want to share the opinions of people I met during my journey and add to this edition new perspectives, that rarely make their way into the mainstream media.

Access to the discourse

Many of the people I interviewed were immigrants to Britain and therefore explicitly concerned with the impact that changes to immigration would have in case of a secession from the EU. The Annana Community Centre in Manchester, which is run by British-Bangladeshi women, provides advice for navigating the British system and everyday many newly arrived migrants from Italy, Spain and France meet there. Interestingly, many of them are unaware of the political changes ahead even though they have plans to invite more relatives to Britain.

Dipu

A striking example is the following scene I experienced in the Annana Office: Dipu, an Italian-Bangladeshi volunteer, who has settled in England three years ago, asked her British born colleague Hasina about the meaning of some flyers she received in her mail. Hasina quickly explained to her why the hateful information sheets of the “Out” campaign were very bad and advised her to throw them away as quickly as possible. While Dipu is going to be directly affected by changes in immigration laws for European citizens, her knowledge of English is limited and therefore she is excluded from the discussions on immigration to England, which concern her very much. While she is the central object of the discourse, her possibilities to take part in it and influence her own future are limited.

Sujit and Shumon

Sujit and Sumon on the election day.

A very different example is provided by the British-Bangladeshi brothers Sujit and Sumon. Sujit came to London 11 years ago with a student visa, succeeded in his professional career and recently acquired permanent residency in Great Britain. His brother Sumon´s student permit has expired after seven years in Britain and without a new visa he faces expulsion from the country, where he built himself a life in the last seven years. The British immigration law has toughened over the last years and Sumon was refused a new visa several times. Sujit started looking for alternative paths and found a loophole in the confusing interrelations of EU law. He made plans to move to Ireland to apply more successfully for a visa for his brother. On the night of the 23rd June, the brothers followed the results of the referendum with great tension. When it became clear that Britain voted to leave the EU around 5 in the morning, it meant for Sujit and Sumon that their space to act was shrinking and they would have to be quick to realize the plans. Sumon and Sujit had access to the discourse and cast their vote, however their perspectives are rarely discussed in the public discourse.

Diverging opinions

Jesmin

Jesmin sitting for a conversation.

My British-Bangladeshi interviewees, among them many who already acquired British citizenship or were born in the country held all kinds of attitudes towards the referendum. Jesmin, a Mancunian cultural activist and translator in her forties, who has lived and raised her kids in England for 20 years, expressed her great distress about the vote to leave the EU on Facebook in the following comments, posted within the hours of tension when the results of the referendum were published: “In in in in!”, “If leave wins, it would be down to the inaction and complacence of the remain supporters. Going to bed with an uneasy feeling; I don’t like breakups, especially ones that we’re not so sure about.” “Only 4% majority shouldn’t be enough to leave the EU. Feeling apprehensive about the future.”

Dr. Renu

Dr. Renu, who spend her whole adult life in England and currently works for the local authority in London, expressed similar distress about the decision to leave the EU: “I feel so sad, depressed and shocked because of Brexit. The Bengali people in London faced a lot racism in the 70´s and 80´s and I thought those days are over. This intolerance is terrible”. At the same time she expressed critical views of immigration, paraphrasing slogans of the Vote Leave campaign about eastern European immigrants “ They never stand in the queue and are very uncultured. It is probably because of they are used to communism. They cannot deal with their freedom here. They are also very racist. They don´t like other skin colours. They bring a lot of children from Romania because they are earning more on child benefit than they could otherwise. One woman told me in a whispering voice that she is from Romania, she didn’t want anyone to know.”. A very interesting discrepancy in her discourse emerges, as she negotiates her ideas of tolerance with images of the other prevalent in the British media at the time.

Faisal

Her distress about European immigration was shared by Faisal, a 29 year old London born British Bangladeshi, who is an activist for Palestinian rights and sympathises with left and anarchist politics. To explain his stance against European immigration he told the following story: When he was a teenage boy, he used to earn pocket money by delivering papers. A few months ago, he contacted his old employer again in order to ask for a job for his younger cousin but all the papers were delivered by an adult Polish man now. Faisal was unhappy with this development which he found contributing to problems of young people with migrant backgrounds in London. For him immigration from Europe presented competition for limited access to jobs, education, public spaces and other opportunities, which should be open first and foremost to local youth. It is interesting how he negotiates personal experiences of racial discrimination and migration in his family with the right wing anti-immigration arguments he supports in the Brexit discussions. Faisal argues for example that EU law favours European immigrants over those from Britain´s former colonies and consequently is euro-centric and neo-colonial. When I met Faisal, a fervent supporter of “Out” before the 23rd of June, again some days later, he deeply regretted his own and his country’s vote, abashed by the racist violence springing up all over England.

A Majority for Remain

Next to the people presented above, who were following the political development with great interest, some interviewees were more on the surface or not so much concerned with the referendum. However, they also shared the opinion of the majority that the Vote to Leave would negatively affect Britain and especially immigrants and people with non-English heritage. They feared increasing racism and discrimination in public spaces and the job market.

Conclusion

All in all, the diverse approaches of my interviewees towards the questions on immigration raised by the Brexit campaign reflect their very different social attributes. Next to personal political opinion and the environment, age, gender, profession, length of stay in England and level of English determined their access to the discourse as well as their opinion. There was no general consensus but rather multiple, even opposing opinions shaped by own lived experiences as well as “greater narratives” promoted by politicians and media.

Emilia Henkel

Image 1: Jeremy Weate Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

The post Brexit from a New Perspective: British-Bangladeshi Reactions to the Discussion of Immigration appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Break the Silence

Laura Korte — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:18:02 +0000

It is not too often you see more than 15,000 Finnish people gather together in one place. Unless, of course, one recalls May 16, 2011. Finland won the Ice Hockey World Championship games. Beyond that day of endless drinking and celebrations, a recent occurrence on Saturday September 24, 2016, was somewhat startling. A great number of Finnish people had come together to protest and show unity.

It was all triggered by the murder of 28-year-old Finnish man, Jimi Karttunen, on September 10. While out in Helsinki, Karttunen approached a neo-Nazi Finnish Resistance Movement demonstration. Wanting to challenge their ideology, the conversation escalated and he spat at them during the exchange. The group conceded that they then “confronted” the victim in police reports. More specifically, it was found that Karttunen was beat down to the ground by a 26-year-old suspect with a history of violence and neo-Nazism, Jesse Torniainen. The suspect was placed in custody. Several days after the initial attack, Karttunen died in hospital from a brain hemorrhage.

The news of the tragedy travelled fast. Outside of Helsinki Central Station, a small vigil sprang out of the growing dialogue. Flickering candles illuminated bright yellow chalk that read ‘Stop the Hate.’ Soon, there was an event on Facebook for an anti-racist protest. At first, there were 200 people going, then 1,700 people going, 5,000 people going, and, suddenly, 7,000 people going. And on that autumnal Saturday of September 24, 15,000 protesters marched against the neo-Nazi Finnish Resistance Movement.

With an ever more socially-conservative mass media and government, there has been an undercurrent of tension between the right and left. Though, the issues of neo-Nazism and right-wing populism have taken root and flourished in Finland despite opposing will. It is a sign that, although liberal Finns are cautious, demonstrations against such hate should have occurred sooner. And perhaps now, the silence surrounding the unresolved leniency banning such racist organizations, like the Finnish Resistance Movement, has resulted in a homicide.

The passive acceptance of racism and xenophobia has been present in Finnish culture for some time now. All the different movements, such as “Close the borders,” have certainly gotten stronger over the past few years as the refugee crisis and the sanctity of the European Union has been questioned, putting real and imagined pressures on Finland. It is the more moderate and open-minded Finns who have realised it is time to come together and preserve tolerance.

Neo-Nazism reared its ugly head and showed Finland just what happens when people are told to fear refugees and open borders. After this tragic escalation of intolerance, Finland has displayed solidarity and unity outside of hockey games. With the eminent rise of the far-right in Finland and throughout Europe, it is disheartening that it took such violence to break the silence.

Laura Korte

Image 1: Susanna Pesonen; Hopeful anti-racist protestors at the demonstration in Finland on Sept 24.

The post Break the Silence appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.