EU – Pike & Hurricane

A game of chess at the Greek-Turkish border

Merle Emrich — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:25:18 +0000

Shortly after the Turkish government announced that they would no longer prevent migrants from crossing the Greek border a video appeared on my social media feed: A brown field with a few specks of grass and a handful of leafless bushes, small figure moving in the background, a woman screaming, following after a man carrying a seemingly unconscious toddler under the winter sky veiled in clouds of tear gas.

In a climate of increasing xenophobia, the EU negotiated a deal with Turkey that would allocate billions of Euros to Turkey in exchange for the country preventing refugees and migrants crossing over to the EU. The influx of people was slowed down for a while but did not prevent continued attempts to enter the EU by land or sea putting pressure mostly on Mediterranean countries (Greece, Italy). In Greece, where the atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile towards refugees, the right-wing New Democracy party replaced the left-wing Syriza government in snap elections in July 2019 following a campaign partly based on promises of heavy crackdowns on migration. Their latest move finds expression in the plan to build a floating 2.7 km long barrier in the Aegean Sea meant to ward off refugee boats heading for Lesbos.

When, in early 2020, the Greek government announced plans to build closed detention centres, locals on Chios and Lesbos stormed construction sites in opposition and clashed with riot police. The following weeks saw attacks on asylum seekers, humanitarian workers and journalists. In this climate of mounting tensions, thousands of people saw their hopes of finding humane refuge in the EU crushed as they gathered behind fences and barbed wire at the Greek–Turkish border in late February, and were met with tear gas, water cannons and flashbangs.

Europe’s “shield”

Expecting yet another wave of people fleeing the ongoing battle in Idlib, Syria, the Turkish government decided to open its border to the EU for more than 4 million refugees already located in the country. Some reports even speak of Turkish officials forcing refugees and migrants to leave the country and head towards Greece. In Europe, Turkey’s manoeuvre was largely perceived as an attempt to blackmail the EU into supporting Turkey’s military actions in northern Syria and force more concessions in relation to the 2016 migration deal. “This is a blatant attempt by Turkey to use desperate people to promote its geopolitical agenda and to divert attention from the horrible situation in Syria”, the Greek government said.

Video uploaded on ManotoNews (Persian) shows Turkish military police threatening to beat this Afghan group at gun point, telling them “why did you come here if you don’t want to cross to the Greek border”pic.twitter.com/jAQaYwlVss

— Daphne Tolis (@daphnetoli) March 7, 2020

With a look at the situation as a whole, however, it becomes impossible to find fault on part of Turkey alone. Both Turkey and the EU have made themselves culpable of having turned those who flee the horrors of war into mere pawns in their game of chess; be it to gather military and financial support and obtain more privileged relations with the EU, or to appease right-wing parties and movements and distract from the shortcomings of the Dublin Agreement. In the wake of this dehumanising game of chess, people’s lives, health and dignity have been put on the line without a moment’s consideration.

While Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, travelled to Greece to thank the country for its tough handling of the border situation and describing it as Europe’s “shield”, the Greek government, describing the influx of refugees as an “invasion”, suspended asylum applications for a month despite the right to asylum being granted under international law. And while Argyris Papastathis, deputy head of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ press office claimed that Greek forces were not firing live ammunition, witnesses report shots being fired from the Greek side of the border, although it is unclear if they were fired by a police officer, soldiers or local vigilante.

An Afghan man who was treated at a Turkish hospital for burn injuries says a Greek border guard poured boiling water on him as he attempted to cross the land border in #Evros – via @enginbas pic.twitter.com/fpKk62wlkv

— Daphne Tolis (@daphnetoli) March 10, 2020

Only the dead have seen the end of war

In the midst of it all, concerns about the coronavirus spreading in overcrowded Greek refugee camps are growing. The situation in camps such as the Moria camp on Lesbos has been described as “living hell”. The camp was designed for 3 000 people. However, it currently hosts 20 000. Three square metres of living space are at times shared by five to six people. “That’s a catastrophic situation regarding water and sanitation”, Florian Westphal (MSF) told Deutsche Welle. “The lack of water in the Moria camp is really dramatic. (…) In some parts of the camp, people have built shelters from plastic sheeting. Up to 1 300 people are using a single source of water. (…) Up to 160 people on average are having to use one toilet. Our main demand to the European Union is very clear: You must start now to evacuate these people from Moria.” Ali, a 33-year-old from Idlib, describes Moria as “just a place for waiting for death. Life in Moria is impossible – believe me – most of us here have changed psychologically. Some people have lost their minds.”

The EU began as a neoliberal project designed to maintain peace in Europe. And while, at least in its beginnings, it was predominantly an economic union, the EU has evolved into an international organisation that likes to see itself as a defender of peace and human rights. The situation in the Mediterranean, however, sheds serious doubt on this self-image: Greece, weakened from the financial crisis of 2008, is largely left alone by other EU member states in managing the arrival of those in search for protection – unphased by the misery in Greece’s refugee camps, a migration policy is deployed that voluntarily accepts the drowning of human beings in order to prevent others from arriving, the EU continues to cooperate with the Libyan coast guard knowing about Libyan detention camps and the crimes committed against migrants, deals set to backfire and be broken sooner or later are made with Turkey to dodge responsibility, and those (NGOs and civilians) taking seriously the obligation to save refugees from drowning in face of the EU’s inaction are criminalised.

While European leaders seem to have forgotten the humanitarian spirit of Europe – and perhaps the political elite has always been the wrong place to look for it – can still be found in organisations such as Mission Lifeline, movements such as Seebrücke, and initiatives such as the complaint for crimes against humanity against the EU connected to its migration policy (Germany, France and Italy in particular) in front of the ICC by lawyers Omer Shatz and Juan Branco. It remains to hope that the EU (re)discovers its commitment to humanity and human rights instead of remaining caught up in a game of chess with Turkey that pushes back and forth blame and responsibility sacrificing human beings as it goes on.

by Merle Emrich

Photo Credits

Rescue at Mediterranean // 21/05/2018, Tim Lüddemann, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Syrian Refugees, Freedom House, Public Domain Mark 1.0

2018_01_28_Grecia_Manu_26, Fotomovimiento, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post A game of chess at the Greek-Turkish border appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

YNTR – February 2020: Greece’s floating wall, protests in Chile, Trump’s impeachment, and more

EditorChief — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:41:50 +0000

Greece. The Greek government has proposed to set up a floating wall to stop refugees from reaching the island Lesbos by blocking the main sea route between Greece and Turkey. Around 20 000 refugees are currently being held in a camp on Lesbos with a holding capacity of less than 3 000 people. According to Vasileia Digidiki and Jacqueline Bhabha of The Guardian, the floating-wall project is a sign of the failure of European migration policies.

Chile. The protests in Chile, which began in October 2019, are continuing despite concessions made by the government, including the drafting of a new constitution, submission for approval of which is scheduled for late 2021 provided that the required public spending can be afforded. While the concessions might have appeased some Chileans, others continue to protest against inequalities within Chile, as well as against the human rights violations and police repression (having led to the death of several protesters) they accuse the government of.

Switzerland. While most attendants of the 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which took place in January, arrived by private jet, a group of climate activists set out on a three-day protests march from Landquart to Davos. The march was one of several protests organised around the World Economic Forum to raise awareness on climate change and put pressure on politicians and big companies to take climate action.

USA. In a vote on the US president’s impeachment, Donald Trump has been acquitted of charges of impeachable crimes laid against him as all Republican members of the Senate except Mitt Romney voted against Trump’s impeachment. With the presidential elections in November, however, the long-term impact of the impeachment process remains to be seen.

Great Britain/ EU. On 31 January 2020, Great Britain left the European Union (EU). The European Parliament voted with a majority for the Brexit contract. While the Brexit party was celebrating the decision, the majority of delegates in Brussels were less enthusiastic about the development and some wore scarves with the writing “United in Diversity” on them. As a good-bye, they stood up together and, holding each others hands, sang the European anthem. During the one year transition period following the Brexit there will be a lot of work and (re-)negotiations to be done.

Australia. The Australian bushfires of the past months have fuelled the debate on climate change. Climate activists organised big demonstrations in major cities in Australia, but also worldwide, to protest against the coal mining industry, emission politics and for more climate action. The Australian prime minister Scott Morrison, who was on holidays in Hawaii shortly after the fires started, was widely criticised for his reaction to and handling of the situation, as were other Australian politicians. Morrison admitted that climate change could have a part in the events, but also said this is not the time to discuss it since there was an emergency to deal with. The public (domestically and internationally) expressed a lot of support, respect and empathy for the firefighters as well as critique of the government, because the firefighters do not receive enough resources.

Photo Credits

pi-IMG_5623, zhrefch, CC0 1.0

The post YNTR – February 2020: Greece’s floating wall, protests in Chile, Trump’s impeachment, and more appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

“The European Union wants to kill our cuppa”: How Euromyths and fake news affected the Brexit vote

Isa Tiilikainen — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:26:00 +0000

On 31 January 2020, Britain became the first country ever to leave the European Union. The Leave campaign leading up to Brexit was, to the surprise of many, a success. But how did they manage to do it?

Britain’s relationship with the EU has always been a problematic one. Their accession to the European Union, then EEC, in 1973 was preceded by two previous attempts, both denied by the French. Then, only two years after joining, a referendum was held in 1975 asking the British people: “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community?”. With two thirds of the population voting yes, the country continued to be a member, but the suspicion and mistrust towards the Union always accompanied the 47 years of British membership.

Scepticism appears to stem from this belief of British exceptionalism: they are fundamentally different, and superior to, other nations. In a similar manner, the thought of personal exceptionalism led David Cameron to believe that he could win the referendum on Brexit. The imperial myth of Britain as a superpower leads to the nation approaching the EU from a standpoint that their country deserves a special status and preferential treatment.

To this idea of exceptionalism, the Leave campaign built its narrative. On one hand, the sense of superiority, and on the other hand the myth of being the underdog of the EU facing unfair treatment. Their strategy can be broken down to three parts: (1) simple messaging appealing to people’s emotions, (2) massive social media campaign by micro-targeting, and (3) controlling the debate framing with falsehoods.

False narratives

“We send the EU £350 million a week: let’s fund our NHS instead”, read the side of the infamous Brexit Battle Bus we can all remember. To suggest that such an amount of money would be available for extra spending when the UK leaves the EU was both misleading, as well as a straight up lie. According to different estimates, the actual amount of net payment, after deductions, agriculture subsidies and regional grants, comes down to about £160-190 million a week. And even this amount of money is surely not going to be fully budgeted for the NHS, as post-Brexit customs and legal institutions, among other things, will take up a large part. But the facts didn’t matter. What was important was to build a strong Eurosceptic narrative and appeal to the already existing cynicism of the population.

During the last 25 years or so, British newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Express have been whipping up paranoia related to all kinds of things the EU allegedly wants to ban. Whether it’s curvy bananas, vacuums, kettle pots, lawnmowers or double-decker buses, the EU is about to ban it and Britishness is being severely threatened. These false narratives about the EU are called Euromyths and there have been so many of them circling around, that the European Commission has its own web page dedicated to addressing them. The openly EU-critical news coverage has been widely spread in the British media over the last few decades and that, without a doubt, contributed to the Euroscepticism among the nation. The seed of Brexit has therefore been developing for years before the actual referendum took place.

Social media targeting

A key component in winning the Brexit vote was the massive social media campaign spreading false narratives. The Leave campaign spent 40% of it’s campaign finances on one single technology firm: AggregateIQ. In pounds, this sums up to about 2,7 million, which translates to about 3,2 million euros. AggregateIQ is essentially referred to as a ’’department’’ within Cambridge Analytica; the company that many associate with the ’’fake news’’ around Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. The same methods of micro-targeting in social media were substantially used in the Brexit campaign. What this microtargeting essentially boils down to, is targeting individuals based on specific information gathered about them online. Cambridge Analytica is, for example, legally able to buy consumer data sets from airlines and magazine subscriptions and then connect this information with people’s personal data. The aim is to find persuadable voters and target them with suitable triggers. Facebook has proven to be a great source of psychological insights to millions of voters and fundamentally make all of this targeting possible.

While some of the Leave campaign’s ads run on Facebook maintained that new trade deals outside of EU would create 300 000 new jobs in Britain, others included claims ranging from the EU wanting to “kill our cuppa”, banning tea kettles, complaining about “5 million immigrants coming to the UK by 2030” and “Turkey’s 76 million people are granted visa-free travel by the EU”. So the message was not only focused on “costs and control”, but also based on the nationalist and even xenophobic sentiments. Thus, the campaign was successfully able to target a vast amount of people with a diverse set of values. The way in which the falsities were spread, not only through social media but also through mainstream media, was systematic and strategically intelligent.

Controlling the framing

As was established later on, the Leave campaign’s political message was in many ways built on lies, but initially the lies were not intended to be believed; that just came as a bonus. The intention was to frame and warp the debate. Vote Leave’s strategy was to constantly put out misleading information that would then distract the Remain campaign from having to interfere. By this, the Leave campaign managed to set the stage in their own benefit and get the opposite side to play into their hands.

As the Remainers were forced to correct the falsehoods the Leave campaign was actively repeating, they ended up just reinforcing the myths. You see, even though the claim of sending 350 million pounds a week to the EU was false, it impelled the Remain campaign to talk about the fact that Britain does send money to the EU, and that is exactly the subject that the Leave campaign wanted to talk about. Remain’s efforts to concentrate on the single market, economic affairs and all the benefits EU brings to Britain, went to waste. As Dominic Cummings, the campaign director and mastermind behind the Leave campaign, said: “Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the single market? No way.”

by Isa Tiilikainen

Photo credits

Banksy does Brexit (detail), Duncan Hull, CC BY 2.0

UK News Brexit Headlines 22nd June 2016, Jeff Djevdet, CC BY 2.0

Vote-leave-misleading-headlines, Abi Begum, CC BY 2.0

The post “The European Union wants to kill our cuppa”: How Euromyths and fake news affected the Brexit vote appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

UF trip to Albania

Isa Tiilikainen and Jasmin-Leyla Virta — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:57:12 +0000

Albania is said to be one of the oldest European nations and yet the history and the culture of the nation and the country itself are not very familiar to most of us. In the beginning of October 2019 we had the unique chance of travelling to Albania and getting to know the country as part of the fall trip arranged by UF Malmö.

On the first day of our trip, we took part in a walking tour of Tirana, saw a lot of important sights and heard interesting stories of its history. All the historical facts about Albania in this article are based on the information presented by the local guide on the tour.

The capital surprised us with its beauty, tons of greenery and colorful houses. The metropolitan area of Tirana hosts 1 million citizens, which is around a third of the country’s whole population.

The city of Tirana is located next to the mountains, to one of which we took a day trip.

Landscape of Tirana from Mount Dajti

Painting the city’s buildings in bright colours in the early 2000’s originally was the idea of the then city mayor, now Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama who is also a painter. It was his vision to highlight the bright and happy future ahead after the grey years of communism.

During our trip we gained a lot of insights into the historical chapter of Albania, in particular, when it was a lesser known communist dictatorship within Europe. However, this nation’s history starts from the ancient times, when the country was part of Illyria. Before the modern era, Albania was ruled under the Roman, the Byzantine and most significantly the Ottoman Empire, until it gained independence on 28th November 1912.

The most prominent feature of Albania’s recent history, has been it’s strict communist rule under Enver Hoxha from 1944 until 1991. Albania sometimes even was referred to as the ‘’North Korea of Europe’’ due to the personal cult surrounding Hoxha, strong restrictions to citizens freedoms and severe violations of human rights during this time period.

Small statue of Hoxha together with a statue of Lenin and two of Stalin

The beginning of Hoxha’s rule was strongly influenced by the Soviet leader Josef Stalin as Hoxha followed his footsteps in creating a communist regime with a closely planned economy. In the 1950s, once the Soviet Union abandoned Stalinism, Albania tightened its relations with the People’s Republic of China led by Mao Zedong but eventually also this relation was destroyed and Albania was left without allies. This lead to the isolation of the nation, and no man could freely enter or leave the country.

In the 1980s the Pyramid of Tirana was the Enver Hoxha Museum, today, it is waiting to be reconstructed as a youth center

The communist era was marked by Hoxha’s paranoia of foreign powers invading Albania. Its legacy is still one of the most visible features of the country, as the leader built over 700 000 bunkers all over the country to protect the people. Today, a great amount of these bunkers are still visible in the Albanian landscape and two museums called Bunk’art 1 and 2 are telling the story of communist Albania to the public.

Reconstructed bunker in the city center of Tirana

Collection of bunker photos at Bunk’art 1

In 1991 communism collapsed in Albania, surprisingly through elections, and the country was ready to open its borders and contribute to the international community.

Germany donated a piece of the original Berlin Wall to Albania as a memorial after the collapse of Communism

One rather ironic part symbolizing the end of communist era in Albania is the site of former leader Enver Hoxha’s house. The first international fast food chain ever to arrive in Albania was Kentucky Fried Chicken, and today their restaurant is located across the street from Hoxha’s house, the face of the logo smiling directly at it.

Enver Hoxha’s house

Since the communist rule, Albania has been developing rapidly, striving to get rid of the organized corruption and other societal issues, and today it is a member of many international organizations such as NATO and WTO. The modernization and shift to market economy took place quickly, as in the past 27 years the country has been able to establish remarkable reforms.

The country today is very pro-west and eager to join the EU, with as much as 94% of the population in favor of joining. Our visit in the Swedish Embassy in Tirana gave us more profound insights on Albania’s possible EU accession, and we discussed the role of Sweden as a big supporter of Albania’s accession after 50 years of bilateral cooperation. As you are reading this article, the EU leaders are discussing the opening of accession negotiations with Albania.

During our trip we also heard about the most current political and societal situation of Albania, when visiting CRCA – Children’s rights center Albania and Roma Active, an NGO helping Roma and working on challenges the minority faces in Albania. These visits gave us a lot of information about the current issues the nation is facing, especially in terms of becoming an applicant to the EU. One large problem is the fact that young people are leaving the country to study or work abroad and are not returning. NGOs like CRCA are working towards building trust and safety net for young people to return and invest in their home country. Though there are still major issues with transparency, grass-root corruption and trust in politicians, Albania seems to be on the right path in terms of becoming more and more democratic. It is likely that within the next decade, Albania will be ready to officially begin the EU application process, which we think would be beneficial to all parties.

UF Malmö visiting CRCA

by Isa Tiilikainen & Jasmin Virta

Photo credits

The post UF trip to Albania appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Brexit: Should I stay or should I go?

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:40:48 +0000

There have been many movements and changes going on in international politics in past years- but much attention is also on an event that does not seem to move since more than three years- and if it moves, then not necessarily forward, but to the left and right and sometimes also backwards: Brexit. Going on exchange to the UK during the summer semester of 2019, I got a brief idea of the mood in the country.

Moving onbackwards

Is it coming, when and how? These are the questions that not only Brits, but all Europeans are asking when it comes to the exit of the UK from the EU. No one has any idea what is going to happen because politics keep changing directions all the time and the government does not seem to have one united direction that they are moving towards. Currently, the planned date for the Brexit is the 31st of October 2019. But by the time you are reading this, the world might have already changed again.

Being on exchange in the UK when Brexit was supposed to happen (but did not), I could experience the “chaos” that it creates. It is not an obvious mess, everyday life is still functioning- but questions appear here and there and, most importantly, no one knows what to prepare for: Move!? But where to?

Before leaving, I talked to Brexit protesters in Westminster in front of the British parliament. They use every opportunity to make their point and many of them come regularly to this place. We had a long conversation that revealed insights into the situation and some problems of the country. It needs to be mentioned that I made my experiences in the cities of London and Brighton where the population voted mainly for Remain. So yes, these quotes are opinions and represent a certain point of view. They are not representative of the whole UK or a claim of truth by Pike & Hurricane.

“I wish I would wake up and it’s not”

The real frustration derives from the lack of action from all politicians, the leading Conservative Party as well as the opposition. The Labour Party for instance is not united in what they want, which hinders them from taking a clear stance.

“The Labour Party does not know what it wants. […it] has got to make a decision and they want to try to be in the EU and not be in the EU. So, people are really frustrated with the Labour Party because they are not making a decision”

The country is not moving in one direction, instead everyone seems to want something different.

How could it come that far? Many possible explanations exist,therefore, it is interesting to see what the people in the streets are saying. Based on what they said it is possible to paint a picture of distrust and misinformation. One aspect are unequal conditions in the country, the other one is that various actors blame the fault on other actors- mainly the EU- and use the old geopolitical rivalries between the UK and continental Europe. In that regars, the press does have a significant role to play when it comes to shaping the public opinion through their information and story-telling.

“It is a brainwashing thing. We have a very poor press […] in this country and it supports this nonsense.”

Many still have the political views of the last world war in their mind which saw Germany as the opponent, and thus eat up stories that the EU is controlled by Germany who is trying to dictate laws on Britain and undermine its sovereignty.

“It’s a terrible situation in this country, there are a lot of very unhappy people, […] so they blamed Europe, the politicians blamed Europe”.

The protesters in Westminster see dark times ahead if Brexit takes place. They fight especially for the faith of future generations who will lose the privileges of the EU, that present generations could enjoy.

“[In] particular the young people, they are the ones who suffer. It won’t be the older people with their houses and their cars and their pensions, they are all set up, so they can afford to be nationalistic and stupid. But it is actually going to threaten the working opportunities of my children”.

And they are disappointed in their own country and where it is moving.

“I thought I lived in a diverse country that is reasonably progressive […] but we are not progressive at all- we are going backwards.”

“I’m British, and I’m European. And I would say that I’m European first and British second.”

“We can’t afford to give up”

The protesters I met see leaving the EU not as the solution to problems. Changing an institution can only be done from within.

“Like many other organisations, the EU has its faults, you can try to change it.”

That is why they are hoping for another “people’s vote”, which is the reason why they still stand regularly in front of Westminster to protest. Since the last referendum three years have passed and according to them, many people only see now what actually will happen to their country and therefore come to the realisation that they would not vote for Leave anymore. The Brexit referendum has no support and mandate anymore to be executed, they say.

“We haven’t voted to leave , a small minority of the overall population […] voted Brexit. A lot of people have changed their minds, the opinion polls suggest that. On a decision of this importance, we are fighting for another referendum, a second opportunity”

“People know more about what is in price and we are confident that if we get another referendum […] we will remain full members of the EU”

It needs to be kept in mind that the disagreement over British politics just reflects the many conflicting opinions in the UK. And they need to be respected, listened to and understood to resolve the situation.

Motion sickness

What seems to unite the UK now, is that they want something to be done, they want to know in which direction they are moving. The British people are frustrated because too little is happening. And that makes it tricky, also for the international political community: how to deal with a country that does not know where it stands and where it will go? That is the real problem of this constant moving back and forth: the time, energy and resources that are spent on Brexit could be better invested in solving problems of more pressing issues. May it be environmental issues, culture clashes, the gap between rich and poor or the city and the countryside, security questions… the list of priorities is long.

Before leaving, I asked the protesters for a message they want to give to the rest of Europe. They all sounded similar:

“Please don’t give up on us!”

“Please be patient. Don’t chuck us out, ‘cause it’s not sorted out here.”

“Millions of us love you.”

Written by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

The post Brexit: Should I stay or should I go? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Moving money out of the public eye: tax evasion in the EU

Isa Tiilikainen and Jasmin-Leyla Virta — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:49:02 +0000

Tax fraud and tax evasion within the European Union (EU) form a big problem that concerns all EU citizens. For instance, in 2017 the EU lost 137 billion euros in value-added-tax revenues, but taking also other types of tax frauds into account, the estimates of lost revenues due to tax evasion and avoidance go all the way up to 1 trillion euros.

Tax avoidance and evasion can be carried out in different ways, such as aggressive tax planning by taking advantage of loopholes in legislation or by transferring money to tax havens. Tax havens are often associated with remote and foreign states but, despite the close economic integration of the EU, can also be found within the Union.

Today, tax avoidance is a recognized problem in the EU, so how is it still possible?

Free movement of capital facilitating tax avoidance

The free movement of capital is one of the EU’s four freedoms and the basis of the European Single Market meaning that all restrictions and limits on the movement of capital – for example, on buying and selling shares and assets, as well as foreign investments between member states being prohibited. This freedom, related to banking secrecy, has created an opening for tax frauds – or at least made the monitoring of tax compliance trickier.

The EU has been working on harmonizing taxation and legislation in the member states, but still there are big differences regarding state provided tax reliefs and tax transparency. This has offered more room for systematic tax planning, tax avoidance and, eventually, tax evasion. As the taxation differs from one member state to another and the tax rates can be notably lower, tax payers, investors and companies might consider directing their income and profits through a different member state that is not their country of residence. Due to this, a total of seven EU member states, Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands, are considered tax havens.

In recent years, this action has been closely observed through the Luxembourg Leaks – a major investigation revealing that over 300 foreign companies avoided taxes by channelling the taxation through Luxembourg where companies pay significantly lower corporate taxes than in other European states as the state’s legislation makes offers of substantial tax relief and deduction deals in privacy.

Several multinational companies, such as Disney, Pepsi and IKEA, profited financially by centralizing their income stream on European market through Luxembourg where they had to pay less than 1% taxes of their profits whereas taxation in other EU countries could have cost them billions of euros more, as the average corporate income tax rate in the EU countries is currently around 21,3%. Similar taxation deals are found for example in Ireland with Apple and in the Netherlands with Nike, as revealed by an investigation of the so-called Paradise Papers.

Zero-sum game?

Free movement of capital and tax planning within legal framework can create healthy competition and maximize profits for all actors, the EU, the member states, the companies, as well as individuals. However, at worst, harmful tax competition can unbalance the equality between the member states.

According to Spanish Member of the Parliament, Miguel Urban, the problem with tax evasion is the lack of fiscal unity in Europe which leads to fiscal competition and dumping aimed at attracting companies and capital. One can even argue that free movement of capital facilitates tax evasion. Miguel Urban states: “We are returning to a feudal system, where the feudal lords don’t pay any tax. This aristocratic class and modern feudalism is called Bono, Messi, Christiano Ronaldo as well as Nike, Apple and Amazon. It’s a class that positions itself not only above the middle class but also above small and medium-sized businesses. It’s a new nobility that believes to be above the law.’’

States’ right to choose their form of taxation is an argument often referred to by the tax-avoiding nations. For example, many Luxembourgers have publicly expressed this opinion, as a spokesman for the Luxembourg Finance Ministry says: “Each country should be free to fix taxes according to its national priorities”. Many lobby organisations promote this view as well, as Nicolas Mackel from Luxembourg’s financial lobby puts it: “Competition is healthy. And it is legitimate. To align the rules would certainly increase taxation. And that is not necessarily the most appropriate thing”.

These opposing views have created some contradictory outcomes mainly associated with the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. Previously Juncker has been the Finance Minister of Luxembourg, meaning that he has been one of the main actors preparing the tax relief deals with multinational companies, but as the President of the Commission he has been forced to fight against these deals and tax evasion.

However, with regards to the internal market system of the EU, it is evident that when one country offers tailored tax deals to multinational corporations, it steals the revenue from all the other countries. When multinationals dodge taxes, the gap has to be somehow compensated for and this often means increasing taxes on small and medium-sized enterprises, lower- and middle-income households and cutting back on public services.

The EU loses around 20% of its corporate tax revenue to tax havens. The woeful part about tax evasion is its clear connection to inequality between citizens all over Europe. Had the correct amount of corporate taxes been paid accordingly, there would be no need for any budgetary cuts.

Time to act

Recently the EU has taken measures to combat tax evasion as one of the focus points of its agenda.

One of the most effective and recent actions of the EU in the fight against tax evasion is the Anti Tax Avoidance Package based on the recommendations of The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The package was introduced in 2016 and aims at achieving fairer and more coherent corporate taxation by increasing transparency and helping the member states to act united against tax frauds. As a part of this package the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, creating a minimum level of protection against tax avoidance, was applied on 1 January 2019. The directive includes rulings against profit shifting to low-tax countries, to prevent double non-taxation and to discourage artificial debt arrangements.

Even though these measurements are now applied, the fight against tax evasion is still in its early stages. Like with many other major issues within the EU there seems to be more talking than taking action. One reason for this is the fact that taxation is still very highly associated with member states sovereignty. As a consequence, policies and rulings related to taxes are handled in the Council of the European Union with unanimity which means that one single member state can obstruct the proposed changes and legislation if it collides with their own national interest.

Issues with a cross-border dimension, like aggressive tax-planning and evasion, are hard to tackle with only domestic policies. The EU’s internal market structure between 28 member states can both be the accelerator of the problem, as well as the key to a possible resolution.

Written by Isa Tiilikainen & Jasmin Virta

Photo Credits

Bad Weather, Frédéric Schneider, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker debated the last EU summit, Pietro Naj-Oleari (European Parliament), CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Members making statement during vote on motion of censure against the Commission, Pietro Naj-Oleari (European Parliament), CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Moving money out of the public eye: tax evasion in the EU appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

France and the Sorrows of Organic Agriculture

Merle Emrich — Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:27:15 +0000

We live in a time, in which climate change and environmental protection are one of the most important challenges that need to be overcome. Organic farming can be a factor that contributes positively to this aim. However, interests of private companies and counterproductive government policies increase the difficulty of making this possibility reality – the situation in France being only one example.

Vittel without Water

In Vittel, France – where more than two million bottles of water a produced daily – about thirty farmers have signed a contract with Nestlé’s subsidiary company Agrivair. These farmers are allowed to use the land agreed upon in the contract for free, provided they comply with a number of regulations that are supposed to keep the groundwater clean. So far, so good. Yet, this deal is part of a development that sees Nestlé privatising more and more water sources in the region making it impossible for anyone but the company to use them. Not only is there a plan to cut off the whole population of Vittel from local water sources and instead pump water through a pipeline from a region fifteen kilometres away into the homes of the people, but it also makes life difficult for the farmers that have signed Nestlé’s contract.

During summer, water supplies are already low, especially with groundwater levels sinking due to Nestlé’s presence in the region. Since the company has – legally – closed wells to prevent nitrate from polluting the water, the farmers are forced to drive around for up to five hours a day to organise water for their animals. And that even though Nestlé has built a new well and thus, there would be enough water for the company as well as the farmers that help keeping the groundwater clean. One of these farmers is Benoît Gille who combines growing apples with keeping a breed of sheep that does not eat bark. That way the sheep naturally maintain and fertilise the meadow which the apple trees grow on. It could be success story of organic farming if it wasn’t for the water issue.

Guns before Butter

Vittel, however, is not the only place in France where farmers – especially organic farmers – are facing troubles. Despite a growing awareness of and interest in organic agriculture, the French government decided to discontinue state support for organic farmers (2018). Macron has broken with France’s traditional stance on EU agricultural subsidies by accepting a reduction of these funds. The plan combines a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with increased spending in other sectors, especially defense which illustrates what POLITICO calls a policy of ‘guns before butter’. And despite assurances that there will not be a CAP reduction, most experts on farm policy predict a general fall in farm funding.

Macron is already facing a severe image problem due to accusations of him being ‘president of the rich’ and not of the ordinary people. His take on reforming the agricultural sector is more than unlikely to change this for the better and could offer a chance to more right-leaning politicians to win some extra points in the coming European elections. And that is beside severely harming the organic agricultural sector.

What Organic Agriculture is and what it should be

With 58% of the French people being convinced that organic farming is beneficial for environmental protection both the number of consumers and organic farmers is growing. Yet, organic agriculture only accounts for a small percentage (7.3%) of all farmed land. It is a sector that, despite gathering strength, still needs support – not to increase consumption but for technical development. The abolition of CAP funds for sustainable agriculture thus present a serious challenge to organic farming as has already become evident in the cases of the UK and the Netherlands.

In the case of the UK the land used for organic farming has been diminished by 29% within five years (2010-2015) once subsidies for the sector had been cut. With environmental protection being more urgent than ever, it is counterproductive to weaken the organic farming industry, especially when there is the necessary consumer demand that helps the sector grow until it is stable enough to function on its own. From rising food prices due to increased production costs to increased water pollution due to nitrate in fertilisers that are used in conventional farming, the reduction of support for organic agriculture has a number of negative impacts on environmental as well as social justice. Thus, as French MEP Eric Andrieu (S&D) states: ‘Organic agriculture should be the primary beneficiary of future CAP reform, but we are still far from such agricultural revolution.’

by Merle Emrich

Photo Credits

Fauno in the fields, Damanhur Spiritual EcoCommunity, CC BY-ND 2.0

Shropshire Sheep, Amanda Slater, CC BY-SA 2.0

Agriculture, StateofIsrael, CC BY 2.0

The post France and the Sorrows of Organic Agriculture appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Neither Friend nor Foe – Shades of Grey

Dora Car — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:11:36 +0000

If the European Union were a person, it would more than likely be going through a period of severe existential crises right now. To say it has a lot on its plate at the moment would very much be an understatement; from Brexit and all the joys that come with the territory, to several of its other key members having significant internal political issues, all the way to the by-now pretty much constant worrying signs coming from both the West and the East, as led by Trump and Putin respectively. The former’s commitment issues to the EU and NATO alike, and the latter’s need to constantly show off its military dominance (as if we could ever even get the chance to forget) are very much a constant in the Union’s priority agenda. But not too far behind all these lies Turkey, in all its nationalist, yet utterly unpredictable glory.

The perfect utilitarian friendship

Apart from being NATO’s second biggest armed force, Turkey also has the (mis)fortune of being placed in a geopolitically incredibly interesting location, one that quite literally acts as the bridge between the East and the West. Although its nationalist agenda has become clearer than ever during the past year and a half, ultimately Turkey remains critically unpredictable, making its role of a strategic fault line that much more potentially perilous.

Out of the 38 percent of Turkey’s generals that were sacked, the majority were pro-Western secularists, according to one military analyst. The 400 Turkish military envoys to NATO that were ordered home were replaced by not-quite-as-qualified Erdogan-loyalists. Many of these are antagonistic towards NATO and more than friendly with its enemies. Another not so insignificant worry is Turkey’s increasingly warmer relationship with Russia ever since the coup, with Erdogan being increasingly enamoured of and looking up to his Kremlin equivalent.

The warming of Turkey’s relationship with Russia implies a certain message to both the EU and NATO, one with not-too friendly of a tone. For Putin, Erdogan is merely a means to an end, a pawn to weaken and deepen the divide between NATO and the West even further, a strategic objective at the game he has been playing way before Erdogan ever took notice. The new constitution put forward by the referendum epitomises the concept of illiberal democracy, one that some EU members are no strangers to either, and one with Russia very much at the forefront.

Keep your friends close, and your friends with questionable motives – closer

Despite all this, Turkey remains a crucial ally to the EU, even if the allyship is being tested on a regular basis. Turkey matters, not just because of its size, both in terms of population and armed force, but also because of the vast impact it continues to have in shaping the political forces of the world. In many ways, it must walk the thin line between Western liberalism and authoritarian nationalism as epitomised by Russia & Co. In more than one sense it bears the brunt of the burden of the violence that is still spewing from Syria, even though in absolute terms in much smaller numbers than just a year ago. In a way, the referendum in April 2017 was a test of whether democracy and political Islam can be reconciled, even though the result of the referendum should not be taken as a definitive answer to that question.

During the campaign for the referendum, both German and Dutch officials were accused more than once of ‘Nazi practices’, with the accusation against the mayor of Rotterdam being particularly ironic due to both the history of the city in the context of WWII and the personal background of the mayor himself. Even after the referendum result Erdogan wanted, he continued to provoke the EU with things not big or significant enough to justify an actual retribution, but not quite small enough to go completely under the radar either, and these things keep piling up.

Although de jure the Turkish accession talks haven’t been suspended yet, de facto they are at this point moribund at best, with both sides being more than aware of this. Some in the West will use Turkey and its current situation to justify their claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible, and partially, they would be right. But to completely admit that would be to give up on Turkey in the state that it’s in today, and that’s not something the EU is ready to do at this point, no matter how provoked it may feel.

Partly, of course, this is due to self-interest. Both as a crucial NATO member and a vast regional power, Turkey is simply too important to cut off. It has played and continues to play an indispensable role in the remains of the fighting in Syria. Giving it that final boost to jump right into Russia’s arms would also make no sense, strategically-speaking. Then there is of course also the EU-Turkey refugee deal, bringing with it the obvious consequences.

Sometimes the best action is no (re)action

With European parliamentary election fast approaching, the general consensus tends to be not to react to provocations by Turkey, and the main idea is that we have seen it all by now, so just ‘endure’ another year. But what if there is more to come? Is patience and tolerance really a virtue at the point when it means waiting just that tiny bit too long, or tolerating something that should not be tolerated? Depending on who decides and the pretext that led up to that decision, the line can potentially become even more blurred than it is now, and the grey zone between the EU and its not-friend, but not-quite-foe-either – even greyer. For now, however, Turkey and the European Union remain in a loveless marriage.

By Dora Car

Photo credits:

Image 1 by geralt, ‘europe-turkey-conflict-germany‘, CC0 Creative Commons

Imge 2 by DimitroSevastopol, ‘putin-policy-the-kremlin-russia’, CC0 Creative Commons

The post Neither Friend nor Foe – Shades of Grey 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.