Mediaboss Marketing

While Angela Merkel continues to push for an EU superstate, voters in her home nation are backing away from the ideals of bureaucrats and their EU integration project.

The bloc has been hit by a wave of populist politicians, taking on the establishment, with a major resurgence of nationalism in countries once fully behind the idea of a more entwined Union.

A findings of a major study by think tank DEMOS into whether the EU will survive 2017 was launched this week, considering in depth why people all over are turning their backs on the EU dream.

Research for the publication Nothing to fear but fear itself began in 2015 when the eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and issues in Greece threatened to tear the entire EU project apart.

Germany has taken more than one million migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and African nations, leading to a rise from right wing groups, and clashes between cultures.

Failed integration debate reached a climax on January 1, 2016, when more than 100 women in the country reported being sexually assaulted by gangs of migrants in one night.

But with blanket policies, open borders and Brussels-based decision making on the table, voters are beginning to cool in the blind support of all things EU.

GETTYEPA

GETTY

At the UK launch of the DEMOS research last night, Christine Hbner, from German think tank d|part showcased her findings - revealing the image of the EU for Germans is beginning to change.

She said: Majorities or near majorities of Germans are quite afraid of further EU integration, but with regards to very specific topics.

They are very concerned with the loss of social security, given further EU integration.

On the other hand we also have a new majority saying that theyre afraid of a loss of national identity. which is very much at the opposite of looking at a potential loss of social security.

Lots of people are now saying we have to talk about what further integration to the EU is going to look like

Christine Hbner

According to her part of the research Ms Hbner found politicians were not accepting this was a current issue.

She said: There were lots of different concerns about further EU integration.

The countryside has reported to have the lowest image of the EU.

It was quite surprising to see how the politicians have difficulty grasping this.

Lots of people are now saying we have to talk about what further integration to the EU is going to look like.

The politicians werent quite aware of of this.

One MP of the Green Party said I dont think there is any EU related fear.

CDU said they hadnt had anyone in their constituency concerned about the loss of national identity.

There was a stark contrast between what was expressed and what politicians told the think tank.

DEMOS

Although Ms Hubner added: It is not going to be the Germans bringing the EU down.

According to the report, written by Sophie Gaston, perception in Germany has plummeted faster than ever before - although it remains the country least likely to rock the EU boat.

She wrote: Germany is perhaps less Eurosceptic than other places in Europe, recurring crises in the EU have left their mark on German society and public opinion towards the EU.

The German public has recently shown signs of increasingly Eurosceptic attitudes.

On the one hand, more Germans than ever agree that membership in the EU is a good thing (71 per cent) and that overall their country has benefited from EU membership (62 per cent).

At the same time, after a first low during the Eurozone crisis in 2010/11, the EUs image in Germany is on the decline, and faster than before.

In spring 2016 only 29 per cent of Germans said the EU conjured up an overall positive image.

GETTY

The report studied party politics, social cohesion, public policy and the rhetoric and opinions of citizens of five countries.

Those countries which were used as a barometer for the rest of Europe included France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

In Germany, the report found: Sizeable numbers of Germans participating in our survey expressed strong fears about the impact of the EU.

DEMOS discovered in every country, there is either a majority or a substantial minority in favour of reducing the EUs powers or leaving it altogether.

Germany remained the most pro-European of the six with 48 per cent wishing to keep the stars quo - or increase EU powers and just 16 er cent wanted to leave.

DEMOS

The research found although large minorities or even majorities in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden feared for the future of the EU getting worse in 2017, the Union is not beyond saviour.

It states: Attention should focus on how elites can restore trust in the fundamental institutions of our democracies, better articulate the myriad, shared benefits and strength of open societies, and encourage more diverse, challenging and free public debate on issues important to peoples social and cultural identity.

There is no doubt that we are living through a transition that feels cataclysmic in nature disruptive, challenging and potentially dangerous. But the question as to whether this is the beginning or the end of something has not yet been decided.

See original here:
Merkel's nightmare: Now GERMANS question Chancellor's dreams of European Union superstate - Express.co.uk

Peter Nedergaard

The European Union is in deep need of a restructuring. The EU is either reconstructed or the crisis continues. EU will not, however, collapse; it will probably, on the other hand, lose decision-making power and support.

The reconstruction concerns the nature of the EU: its form (flexibility), its content (de-federalisation), and its actors attitude (legitimacy).

The idea of a more flexible EU has been around for years. EU is already to some degree flexibly organized via EMU and the Schengen acquis where not all member states participate. But flexibility in this sense is temporary: that on offer is always a step on the way to full participation.

A reconstructed EU implies a more permanently flexible cooperation. This means a final end to the present one-size-fits-all model. An la carte model might even all in all imply more European integration rather than less. For example, several European countries could become more strongly linked to the EU as associate members. This could be appealing to countries such as Ukraine, Turkey, Albania, and Bosnia. They could get a closer affiliation to the EU than today in certain defined areas without full membership.

A more flexible EU is also thus a more sensitive EU. It implies that had David Cameron been given concessions in the area that clearly worried the British electorate the most full free movement of labour from other EU countries the outcome of the UK referendum would have been different. Cameron could have been offered a freeze on free movement. Such escape clauses are known from other international agreements. With more flexibility, Brexit would never had happened.

Throughout the EUs life federalism has been a powerful ideology. Its ultimate goal is a kind of United States of Europe. According to the federalist argument, only such a united Europe will have a defining role to play in world politics. In addition, this came with the wish for a more democratically rooted EU via direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) to create closer connections with the citizens.

Federalism has had a considerable impact on the EU. The integration process so far mainly consists of a series of gradual changes in EU treaties (referred to as neo-federalism). In general, the preoccupation with constructing powerful EU institutions and granting new competencies to the EU are federalist imprints. In consequence, political energy has often been directed towards the input side of the decision-making process (how to take decisions). In a reconstruction perspective, this energy should instead be on the output side (to make decisions on growth, trade and security for citizens).

Within the integration process, the EP has gradually become more powerful. With the Lisbon Treaty, approx. 75 per cent of all policy areas under EU competence has the EP as co-decision-maker. However, with turnout remaining very low and declining (from 62 per cent in 1979 to 42.5 per cent in 2014), this has not led to any more voter loyalty.

In conclusion, too much political energy in the last 30 years has been spent on discussing institution building and the distribution of power in the EU, instead of discussing policy outputs (a Europe of results).

Ideally, the Parliament should restrain itself and go back to a consultative role. But is that perhaps too much of to ask of an institution which for decades has fought for the opposite? On the other hand, MEPs might also realize the alternatives face: a permanent crisis of the EU.

If the EU political system is to work properly, it has to be legitimate. Political scientist David Beetham established that the exercise of power is legitimate: 1) if it is performed in accordance with statutory rules, 2) if there is correspondence between convictions by the political class and the citizens, and 3) if the legitimacy is explicitly expressed.

When it comes to the first criterion, the EU is characterized by having rule-of-law-like character. In other words: In theory, the European Court of Justice sanctions member countries and citizens who do not comply with the provisions of directives or regulations.

As detected by EU researcher Gerda Falkner, however, there is one problem: The willingness to comply with EU regulations varies greatly among member states (MS). In practice, according to Falkner, in many southern and eastern European MS it is the rule rather than the exception that they fail to comply with EU regulations. She claims that they are living in a world of dead letters when they fail to respond to the reminders about violations of EUs regulations.

When it comes to EU as a legislative authority, legitimacy is formally fine. In practice, it is more ambiguous.

What about the second criterion accord between the governing politicians and the citizens? Here the EUs legitimacy is generally ambiguous. As Simon Hix once showed in his seminal book, The Political System of the European Union, the Commission is always in accordance with the most integrationist MS in individual policy areas. In a legitimacy perspective, the Commission is often out of sync with (other) member states and their peoples.

When it comes to the third point, concerning the explicit nature of EU legitimacy, this is also very ambiguous. On the one hand, repeated opinion polls show that the great majority of voters will vote yes to EU membership by referendum here and now. On the other hand, when a referendum campaign starts rolling, the yes and no become are put more on an equal footing in the media than normally the case. And, as we have seen, turnout in EP elections has reached an historic low.

The EU crisis is not just about one thing. Both more flexibility and de-federalisation will have several positive effects. That will increase EUs legitimacy. However, a reconstruction of the EU on these lines will require far-sighted and courageous politicians of the same calibre as in the 1950s, when the EU was established, and in the 1980s when the EU was last in a deep crisis.

Do these politicians exist in present day European politics?

Peter Nedergaard is Professor of Political Science at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.

Read more here:
Reconstructing The European Union - Social Europe

The future of the Joint European Torus, the world-leading fusion facility near Oxford, U.K., remains uncertain beyond its current contract which ends in 2018.

EUROfusion

By Erik StokstadMar. 13, 2017 , 5:30 PM

CAMBRIDGE, U.K.For months after the United Kingdom voted last June to leave the European Union, many British scientists clung to hopes of a soft Brexit, which would not cut them off from EU funding and collaborators. But Prime Minister Theresa May, who is expected to trigger the 2-year process of exiting the European Union in coming days, has signaled the break will be sharp. U.K. researchers are now facing up to the prospect that they wont be able to apply for EU funding or easily recruit students and colleagues from the rest of Europe. People are bracing themselves for a bumpier and more abrupt landing, says James Wilsdon, a science policy expert at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom.

To lessen the blow to research, scientists and bureaucrats are already brainstorming about new funding structures and international collaborations that could make up for the lost EU money and brainpower. They are also taking some comfort in a major boost to government R&D funding, detailed last week, aimed at building up research areas that could bolster domestic industries. Yet much uncertainty hangs on what are expected to be rancorous negotiations with the European Union, covering issues such as the right of foreign citizens to remain in the United Kingdom and a possible exit bill from Brussels. We live in a kind of limbo, says Giorgio Gilestro, an Italian neuroscientist at Imperial College London (ICL).

The stakes are high for the United Kingdom, which is a scientific powerhouse and a magnet for talent. Between 2007 and 2013, U.K. researchers brought home more than 7 billion in EU research funding, second only to Germany. Cash from Brussels made up nearly 10% of research funding at U.K. universities in 2013, an increase of 68% since 2009. The United Kingdoms prominence as an international hub was made clear this week when a new analysis of mobility of high-skill professionals, published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, found that the country was four times more highly networked than the average for Europe.

May has said repeatedly that maintaining the United Kingdoms scientific prowess is a priority, but a more immediate worry to the government is industrial competitiveness, as a hard Brexit is likely to mean a departure from the EU common market. To kick-start or boost industries, particularly in biomedicine and technology, the government launched a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund in November 2016. It will spend an extra 4.7 billion on applied research, to be delivered in rising sums over the next 4 years, which amounts to a 23% increase in government R&D spendingthe biggest since 1979. I was flabbergasted, recalls Kieron Flanagan, a science policy expert at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

Last week, the first details on spending were revealed. This years tranche consists of 270 million for research on robotics, electric vehicle batteries, and drug manufacturing technology. Another 300 million will be spent on fellowships for early- and midcareer scientists, grants to attract foreign scientists, and support for an additional 1000 Ph.D. students in fields relevantto the industrial strategy.

In 2020the year after Brexit presumably will occurthe challenge fund will disburse 2 billion, exceeding the 1.6 billion a year the United Kingdom currently gets from Brussels for R&D. But some scientists fear that blue sky research will get left out. It would be crazy to simultaneously boost applied research and allow fundamental research to wither on the vine, says Robert Massey, deputy executive director of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.

After Brexit, U.K. researchers will likely not have access to EU funds that have promoted collaborations.

CREDITS: (Graphic) J. You/Science; (Data) Scopus

One bright spot: The research community will have an influential advocate in 2018 after a reorganization of the six research funding councils into UK Research and Innovation. Its director-to-be, Mark Walport, was most recently the chief government science adviser, and will oversee 6.8 billion a year in science and innovation spending. There is great potential for science to have a greater profile in government and [in] negotiations with the European Union about the terms of Brexit, says Sarah Main, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, a lobbying group in London.

Some urge recreating the most cherished aspects of EU funding within the United Kingdom. Grants from the European Research Council (ERC), in particular, are prized for their size and long duration, and because the work does not need to show societal relevance. The United Kingdom has received about 200 million a year in ERC fundingmore than any other country. Another hope is to make up for the expected loss of talent from the European Union by easing entry for scientists from the United States, China, and elsewhere. Were going to have to recruit from the entire world, says Venki Ramakrishnan, who heads the Royal Society, which is pushing for immigration reform. Skeptics say any loosening of visa regimes is unlikely when the government has vowed to reduce immigration overall.

A related approach is fostering non-EU international collaborations. Efforts are already underway: In 2013, the research councils signed a 5-year agreement with the U.S. National Science Foundation to allow scientists in both countries to submit joint proposals in social sciences. A year later, the United Kingdom launched the Newton Fund, which will spend 735 million over 7 years for research partnerships supporting economic development in China, Brazil, India, and more than a dozen other countries. But details are scarce.

Some applied researchers may be celebrating their bonanza, but many other scientists are gloomy. The next 5 to 10 years are all about damage limitation, says Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at ICL. Its deeply depressing.

Please note that, in an effort to combat spam, comments with hyperlinks will not be published.

See the article here:
U.K. scientists prepare for impending break with European Union ... - Science Magazine

In lets-all-take-a-step-backwards news, the European Unions highest court ruled this week that employers in Europe can legally ban hijabs at the office.

On Tuesday, a court in Luxembourg ruled it was legal to bar women from wearing hijabsas long as the company has a policy that bans all religious garb. While technically the ruling applies to symbols across religions and political bents, it comes in the midst of a European election season during which feelings toward Islamism have been under the microscope and conservative politicians have been gaining popularity, reports The Guardian .

You May Also Like

FashionCaitin Stickels, Model With Rare Genetic Disorder, Stars In Stunning Editorial

FashionModcloth Is Reportedly Being Bought by Walmart

Though not official, the ruling feels especially tailored to Muslim women. The decision comes as the result of two separate lawsuitsboth by Muslim women. In the first, a Belgian woman was fired from a security company where shed worked for three years when she started wearing a hijiab. The company said shed broken unwritten rules on religious symbols at work, according to The Guardian . In the second suit, a Muslim woman in France was fired from a tech firm after a customer claimed his employees were embarrassed" by the hijab she wore during a presentation. In this case, the court ruled in her favor, stating customers cannot ask an employee to remove a head scarf unless the company has a policy against them already in place. Last summer, French municipalities sparked outrage when Muslim women were prohibited from wearing swimwear that covers the body and the head, better known as the burkini.

Considering the current social climate around hijabsespecially in the global arenas of fashion and sports this seems like a major step backward. This year, Somali-American Halima Aden made history as the first Muslim model to walk in fashion week wearing a hijab, hitting runways from new-school Yeezy to old-school Alberta Ferretti (and before that she made history as the first contestant to wear a burkini in a beauty pageant). In the world of sports, Nike made major news earlier this month by announcing plans to release a sports-friendly hijab , leveling the playing field for Muslim athletes.

With the EUs ruling in the mix, it looks like two steps forward and one step back when it comes to fighting hijab-based discrimination.

The latest news surrounding hijab:

We asked Women's Day protesters what beauty means to them:

More:
The European Union Just Ruled Employers Can Legally Ban Hijabs at Work - Allure Magazine

Charlotte Observer

Bank of America eyeing new European Union base after Brexit Charlotte Observer Bank of America views Dublin as its default destination for a new hub inside the European Union if Brexit means Britain loses easy access to the single market, according to one of the firm's top executives in Germany. The Charlotte bank will likely ... and more »

Originally posted here:
Bank of America eyeing new European Union base after Brexit - Charlotte Observer