EU working at Plan B in case of Brexit

Juncker said there was only one option, Mogherini confessed there is other on the table

by Emanuele Bonini

The European Commission is setting up the Plan B for the United Kingdom, in case the British people decide to leave the European Union voting for a Brexit. For the first time since the beginning of the British affair, the European Commission admitted that the EU is working to the "stay-out" scenario. «If the UK referendum takes a different decision of not staying in the EU, I would do all that I can to guarantee bilateral relations with the UK», said yesterday the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. She said MEPs of the committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament that in case of a Brexit nothing has to be considered as granted, since a new relation «would be negotiated between the UK and the other 27 Member States». This is a clear admission of a change in Commission view. Still few days ago the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated that in Brussels «we don’t have a Plan B, we have a Plan A», making clear that the Plan A foresees Britain will stay in the European Union. Listening to Mogherini it appears clear a Plan B is there, with the EU institution already working on it.

EU asked Member States emergency plans on migration

Meanwhile the Council wrote a new paragraph to the draft regulation for the new Frontex: Greece and Italy will be isolated in case they fail in secure the European external borders

by Emanuele Bonini

Europe starts working on worst scenarios. Migration crisis is now more than a crisis, it is close to be a real emergency. In a joint statement issued today by the European Commission and the Dutch rotating presidency of the EU Council admitted to be «concerned about the developments along the Balkan route and the humanitarian crisis that might unfold in certain countries especially in Greece», calling on «all countries and actors along the route to prepare the necessary contingency planning to be able to address humanitarian needs, including reception capacities». The Dutch minister for Migration Klaas Dijkhoff and European Commissioner for Migration, Dimitris Avramopoulos, assured their joint determination to pursue a European approach to the refugee crisis, although Member State are already reintroducing border controls and are ready to isolate Greece in dealing with migrations.
The joint statement confirmed the worried status of the European Council, the EU institutions representing the 28 Member States. Diplomats admitted only few days before the joint statement that there is general concern over the development of the migration flows. «As far as we know at the moment the are not substantial changes in the routes», the diplomats said, but clearly the situation is felt as always more out of control. The Dutch presidency, until June the voice of the European governments, pushed the European Commission to do something, and the results are the emergency measures. «In parallel» with the national contingency plans asked to the Member States, «the Commission is coordinating a contingency planning effort, to offer support in case of a humanitarian crisis both outside and within the EU, as well as to further coordinate border management», said Commissioner Avramopoulos. Europe is basically preparing for the worst, considering there is no way out and no hope to invert the flows. EU officials explained that the number of migrants and refugee already arrived in the EU is too high, and is no higher only because of adverse atmospheric conditions. «To stem the flows» of incoming people is the main goal, and with no trend inversion Member States are acting to close their borders.

Europe to lose anyway in front of British issue

To be smashed by sceptics or to lose political power. For the EU there is no emergency exit, but only lose-lose formula

by Emanuele Bonini

Whatever will happen Europe can't win its game. Blocked in the grip of Eurosceptics and anti-integration forces, the European Union can't do nothing but survive. The choice of accept the UK requests is therefore the lesser evil, which is not good by definition. One of the conditions put on the table by prime minister David Cameron is the possibility to avoid further integration. This is the end of any wish for all those who have been asking the United States of Europe. Letting go the United Kingdom away would open the door to unpredictable scenarios and unexplored situations, and the mild recovery of the European Union could be delete in a while. But on the other hand no further political integration means have a the opposite of a single federal project, so the European Union will be never a Union. The EU is denying itself, institutionalizing a division. There will be a Union of 19 Member States (all those with the single currency) plus all those who will like joining in the future. Europe has already been beaten, in the sense it can't win. What has been proposed to Europe is a lose-lose formula, where the obliged (even forced?) decision will be presented as the a victory for everybody.
It has been said all national delegations are coming to Brussels with a «war room of layers», in order to evaluate the Treaties in the most extensive way possible to have those interpretations needed to answer the British demands. What it has not been said is there is also another war room composed by another special army of experts in charge of making a «wording work» to pack a masterpiece of dialectic whose only purpose is giving the idea everything is OK and will be in the future, too. This is something to agree with. Saying the European Union come to the terminus would be not an easy task, but would be going on with a mutilated Union? The answer comes by its own. The United Kingdom asked to have enshrined the principles of no further union and more power to national Parliaments. The idea of a political union goes right in the opposite direction, that of transfer of sovereignty to the EU institutions. Asking for making irreversible a stop in such a transfer is making irreversible the stop of the European project, with all that it means.

Europe bets on a risky energy package

Too many conditions to be respected as basis of new legislative proposals. Despite the purpose of new regulation, doubts are there

by Emanuele Bonini

Doubts and shadows over the sustainable energy security package presented by the European Commission. Goals and political intention are clear and comprehensible, but what Brussels is proposing is really something achievable? The impression is a general underestimation of the existing risks linked to a real implementation of the package. All the elements of the proposal are surrounded by a certain number of «if». Basically the proposal of the European Commission can work only at certain conditions, whose fulfillment is not given for granted. Thus, the European Union is risking to have a feckless package given the interdependence with unpredictable scenarios. Thus, is the sustainable energy security package what the EU really need? The latest package showed vulnerabilities, and the possibility to have a wear, ineffective and inefficient package is not far away. Let's see the critic point of the proposal.

Solidarity. The idea is to introduce not only in theory but above all in practice a «solidarity principle» among Member States in order to «ensure the supply of households and essential social services, such as healthcare, in case their supply was affected due to a severe crisis». Now, as far as it was possible to see, the European Member States acted during the Greek crisis on the basis of the principle «save Greece to save (our) money». If a Grexit didn't take place was just because of personal economic interests rather than a spirit of real solidarity. Nobody gave the impression to really care of Greece (and indeed nobody did), and the current refugee crises is once again showing that solidarity is not possible in case of emergencies (is this refugee crisis a «severe crisis»? I think so...) or when national scopes are put at stake. So, how can be sure that Member States can be ready to offer any national gas reserve in case of disruption in supplies? The NIMBY approach (Not In My Back Yard) is today the only thing the European States have in common.

Italians, do you know what is right and wrong?

When an unfair episode is avoided somebody is punished, according to media. Is this a demonstration of ethics problems?

by Emanuele Bonini

Italy, what's wrong with you? If wrong is really wrong, of course. There is more than an impression about the huge problem Italy has in distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. It is basically a problem of principles and ethics when the definition of good and evil are put in question, as it is for Italians.  There is a small apparently not meaningful episode which showed the Italian approach. It happened at the beginning of the year, during a football match. For the first time the Italian Serie A tested the goal-line technology, a new generation tool able to understand whether the ball crosses the goal-line. With ASRoma playing in Verona and leading 3-2 against Chievo, the referee man granted a free-kick to Chievo. The striker shot and scored a goal, but it was possible to convalidate it only after have watched the goal-line technology elaboration of the free-kick. In fact the referee man didn't give any goal, then he had to correct himself saying the new score of the match was fixed on 3-3. All the media started reporting that ASRoma was «punished» or «condemned» by technology. Nothing more wrong. No one has been punished, and technology was not responsible fot nothing but making what it has been created for. Technology made clear what was not, avoiding a wrong decision and, as a direct consequence, an eventual unfair defeat. So, what happened is basically fair. People should underline that technology made justice instead of saying it condemned somebody. This clearly shows how in Italy the idea of right and wrong has another nature, well different from that one shared outside the country.

No emissions cuts in aviation until 2035, says the EU

During the next 20 years aircraft won't be able to invert their polluting trends. The increasing demand for flights makes a sustainable scenario «not realistic»

by Emanuele Bonini

There would be a lot to do, but there's nothing to do: a reduction of CO2 emission in civil aviation is simply impossible, according to a report from the European Commission published today. There are no scenarios showing a decrease of the greenhouse gas (GHG). On the contrary, all the indicators are expected rising up. The first "European Aviation Environmental Report" states that CO2 emissions have increased by about 80% between 1990 and 2014, and are forecast to «grow by a further 45% between 2014 and 2035». At the same time, NOX emissions - already doubled between 1990 and 2014 - are forecast to grow by a further 43% between 2014 and 2035. This basically shows that despite new technologies, «future improvements are not expected to be sufficient to prevent an overall growth in emissions during the next 20 years». The main cause of this irreversible trend is due to an increase of flight demand. Number of flights has increased by 80% between 1990 and 2014, and is forecast to grow by a further 45% between 2014 and 2035, with the total number of flights shifting from 8.85 million in 2014 to 12.8 million by 2035. Experts from the European Commission consider «not realistic» to imagine a  GHG emission reduction in civil aviation sector. Thus the real challenge for civil aviation is nothing but a reduction of the growing amount of emissions. In other words, the real goal is just to minimize the environmental impact of aviation.

Spain to re-discuss Stability and growth pact rules

In case of a Psoe-Podemos coalition debt reduction will be slower, said Pablo Iglesias, opening the door to an anti-austerity alliance

by Emanuele Bonini

Spain can put Europe in troubles, opening a new conflict within the EU. The leader of the Partido Popular, Mariano Rajoy, wasn't able to find a majority to create a government, and now it's up the Socialists try to form a coalition. This the first political element coming from the Spanish political world. The second element is the possibility of a coalition between Socialists and the far-left party Podemos. In such a coalition the political agenda would be a stop to austerity measures and «reduce the deficit at a slower rhythm». This is more than flexibility, this is putting in question the stability and growth pact rules. So, what about now? What to do in case Spain really will put forward a revision of the rules? These ones are more than questions, since they risk to became a real problem. The European Commission is keeping silence. Officially the EU institutions never offer comments on internal affairs, especially when things are ongoing and still to happen. But of course there are those who already study countermeasures in case of a Spanish issue, because there is no doubt that Spain can  There is a silent concern. Governments, EU institutions, stock exchanges are looking at Spain. An eventual Psoe-Podemos alliance could be seen as a threat in stability, and maybe the beginning of a domino effect. Spain is not Greece, it's a big country and a big economy, but re-discussing rules would offer an opportunity to put together all those against the strict side of the Stability and growth pact. A government starting not fulfill the European commitments can put in question the Eurozone as a whole, with unpredictable effects on financial markets and, of course, the Eurozone. Of course we talk about the statements coming from Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias. Nothing but words, at the moment. But in politics words count.

Pressmen, chapter 8

Vanity Press 
(lessons of non-journalism)

Who does a pressman write to? Community, it could be said. Society could be another answer. Sorry, but all these answers are wrong. A pressman writes nothing but to himself. Articles and press reports are the pure written expression of any single journalist composing exclusively for his personal pleasure and self-glorification. Information, opinion, analysis are nothing compared to vanity press. In case you believe «where is the new?« is the question on the basis of pressmen activity, let's make clear once and for all that the press world only answer to the following question: «Magic mirror in my hand, who is the greatest in the land?» Of course the greatest one is always the pressman, not a specific pressman, but every single man holding a valid press card. Reason and truth are not out of there, but in what journalists write. So, even when the final work is incomprehensible or not properly written, it is just because of the reader. Reader is the only responsible for not having got what is on paper. Let's have a practical example, and take an article from a well known Italian news agency:

(Original version) 

 ++ Fonti Ue, c'è ipotesi stop Schengen previsto da art.26 ++

(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 21 GEN - In caso di "minaccia sistemica e persistente" alle frontiere esterne di Schengen, la Commissione Ue può proporre al Consiglio l'attivazione dell'articolo 26 del codice, che prevede la possibilità di introdurre controlli alle frontiere interne fino a due anni. Così il portavoce della Commissione Ue. A dicembre Bruxelles non aveva escluso la possibilità di farvi ricorso in futuro e secondo fonti Ue la questione si riproporrà al summit di febbraio. A maggio, la Germania - e a seguire altri Paesi - esaurirà il periodo massimo per i controlli consentito dagli articoli 23 e 25.(ANSA).

«Renzi acts like a mayor», says EPP secretary general

Antonio Lopez-Isturiz White against the Italian prime minister. «He has to remember he's a premier. Let him learn from Juncker»

Antonio Lopez (elPais)

English version of the my interview published on QN - Quotidiano Nazionale

Stimulating the political debate in Europe is not a problem. Of course, when you know how to do. On the contrary, Matteo Renzi «still tends to act like a local politician» rather than a head of government. This is Antonio Lopez-Isturiz White's criticism over the Italian prime minister. The secretary general of the European Popular Party (EPP) came to his conclusions after the struggle between Italy and the European Commission: the Italian leader should attend politics lessons from the same person so criticized in Rome, the president of the European Commission. «President Juncker is a seasoned politician who was Prime Minister of his Country for 20 years, I think Mr Renzi might learn from him the noble art of patience and statesmanship».
Manfred Weber, the president of the EPP group at the European Parliament, stated Renzi is putting at stake the credibility of the EU. Where Renzi  is wrong?
«The Prime Minister should not underestimate the fact that he is the Prime Minister of one of the most prominent European Countries and not the Mayor of a city: there is a substantial difference Mr Renzi has to understand yet as he still tends to act like a local politician».
From the S&D group it has been said Italy has the right to stimulate the debate. So, what is the matter? Renzi is doing in the wrong way?
«There is nothing wrong in raising debates but one should keep in mind that a debate is a means of understanding rather than the objective per se, there are certain limits that need to apply in order for the debate to be part of a solution: a debate is not to be raised through a press conference, it is instead to be raised in the institutions, with different counterparts. Maybe Prime Minister Renzi chooses not to do so in the Council as not all of his colleagues (including Socialists) appreciate what he says and that is why he instead opts for provocative declarations once outside of the Council meetings. The game for Italy is inside the European Council, as a leader, not outside in front of cameras».

Quotes

«Il y a un probleme vraiment serieux entre les états membre. Il y a un manque de confiance entre les états membres».
(Frans Timmermans, vice-president de la Commission Européene, 15 janvier 2016)