Le Model United Nations des Lycéens Lillois 2 ème édition EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Transcription

1 Le Model United Nations des Lycéens Lillois 2 ème édition EUROPEAN COUNCIL

2 Introduction to the Committee As you already previously knew, or learned throughout the preliminary research you carried out, the European Council is not of a body of the United Nations. We decided to include it as part of the MUN because we believe it will prove to be a fantastic learning experience, considering what the European Union is going through right now. The European head of states or governments unofficially met to discuss matters related the European Economic Community since the 60 s. Those meetings will later be formalized by the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2009, officially creating the European Council. From then, the European Council meets four times a year in Brussels. In this particular committee, you will not place yourselves in the shoes of a delegate, but in those of a European head of state of government, according to your assigned country s political system! You will, however, still be asked to maintain the same expected level of decorum, stick to your assigned country s positions within the European Union, and thoroughly research the topics brought before the European Council to clarify what is your country s position regarding these issues. The session will be conducted in the same way United Nation Committee sessions are conducted, for simplicity purposes. The European Commission remains the legislative driving force in the European Union, but the European Council s role is significant nonetheless: this is where the common foreign policy is decided, suggestions to the European Commission are made, issues outstanding from discussions at a lower level are debated, and the treaty changes are negotiated hence its prominent role regarding Brexit Be prepared for a truly challenging experience: as the article 15(4) of the Treaty on European Union reads, except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus. In issues where national interests may conflict with the common interest of the European Union, reaching consensus may prove difficult, but leaving problems unsolved can prove even worse in the long run

3 TOPIC A - Brexit: What Future for the European Union? I. The UK and the EU: story of a long and turbulent relationship. In or out? This question has been at the center of many heated debates: should the United Kingdom (UK) stay in the European Union (EU) or leave for its own sake? While the news brought the issue back center stage rather recently, the Brexit has been in the background for the past few years, and may be the culmination of a complex and turbulent history, to say the least. In 1963, Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain s first attempt to join the Common Market, fearing the progression of English as Europe s main language and accusing the country of deep-seated hostility. De Gaulle always saw the UK as the trojan horse of the United States, a concealed way for them to exert their power on the Old Continent. Back then, the UK s first motives mainly were mutual benefits, trade, and cooperation. You have to go ten years forward to finally see Edward Heath, back then the Conservative Prime Minister, lead the country into the EEC 1, a decision supported by an outstanding 67% Yes from the British population during the 1975 referendum! At this time, the UK seemed rather in favour of a grand European design. But this will not prevent fierce discussions and Euroscepticism from rising in the following years. A prominent figure of the UK s growing aspiration to distance itself from the continent was Margaret Thatcher. Nicknamed The Iron Lady, her uncompromising stances deeply impacted both her country and the EU. In her 1988 speech in Bruges, she strongly rejected what she called a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. The Thatcher years did not prevent what will later be the EU from marching towards a more politically-integrated status 2. Her successor John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which effectively caused the UK to transfer some power to the EU. Even though some Tories 3 continued to oppose the process, the UK and its neighbours cooperated ever increasingly, and many thought Tony Blair s coming to power in 1997 eventually paved the way to reconciliation, as he tried to address the social question in Britain while sharing a positive view of the EU. The European question has made its grand return centre stage for a couple of years. Euroscepticism has stirred heated debates among Conservatives and in the public opinion. In December 2011, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, vetoed a European treaty attempting to create new budget rules and promised a referendum on British membership right after that. June 2016: to the question Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the European Union?, 51.89% answered Yes, and thus began the situation in which the UK and the EU still are today.

4 II. Is a dis-united Kingdom looming ahead? Theresa May recently stated her twelve points for a Hard Brexit : Transparent negotiations, with no false promises made Fully leave the EU Single Market 4 Negotiate a tariff agreement with the European Union Full control over immigration of European sources Maintain the Common Travel Area 5 with Ireland Leave the European Court of Justice Save the United Kingdom s integrity Reassure the British and European citizens regarding their travel rights Keep technological cooperation ties with European countries Cooperate with the EU to tackle terrorism Make sure the Brexit is gradual As one of the points shows, the United Kingdom s integrity might very well be at stake. The vote on Brexit indeed is surprisingly interesting to analyse in geographical terms: The Scots and Northern Irish predominantly voted Remain, as opposed to the English and Welsh. Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, now the first political power in Scotland, already threatened to reignite the debate on the Scottish independence. Most Scots want to remain EU citizens, as they believe their future opportunities would look better should they originate from the EU and not from the UK which, in their opinion, is too centered on England and did too little for them. While Northern Ireland leaving the UK seems much less likely, one should acknowledge that Sinn Féin, the largest Irish-nationalist party, placed second on the last 2015 elections and will probably benefit from this vote. Focusing on England, the vote was representative of the divide that runs deep within the country since the Thatcher years. The rich South, including 60% of the London voters, voted in favour of Remain while the poor, deindustrialised North mostly was the Leave side. Quite paradoxical, one may think, considering that those regions were net recipients of EU funds not so much, when one knows these are where the UKIP fares best. Will the Brexit ignite the economic rebound of these relatively marginalized regions or cause another round of social protests, as inequalities could grow even wider without these funds?

5 Last but not least, the most dramatic divide - and possibly the most impactful in near future - concerns the overall stability of UK politics. While some Tories championed the Brexit, it was far from being a consensual approach in the party. Cameron resigned, and Theresa May herself did not support Brexit. While most of the Labour 6 was on the Remain side, Corbyn s Euroscepticism is no secret. Not even even the UKIP 7, supposedly the grand winner of the vote, is in too favourable a position today as some of its key figures resigned. III. An economic insight into the Brexit: will it be a boon or a bane? The first, immediate effect of the vote on Brexit was the crash of the value of the British pound. Its value has been changing erratically since the vote, but it still is considerably weaker than before the vote. What does that mean for the British economy? A weaker currency means your exports suddenly become more competitive. The thing is, the UK exports rather few industrial or agricultural products, and the ones it does usually are at the high-end of technology, which means the price of the product actually is secondary to the quality as they are competing against similar goods from France, Germany, the US One sector did benefit from the weaker pound, though. An overall 7.1% increase was recorded in the bookings of hotels and flights in the UK, as the destination financially became more attractive to tourists. Those figures even amount up to 20% for destinations such as London, Manchester, Leeds or part of Scotland. The United Kingdom did not become a cheap destination overnight, though. This situation very well only be temporary. It truly becomes problematic when you look at the imports of the UK. It heavily relies on the EU for its food products, because its agriculture sector has become dramatically small over the past decades 8. This added to the new possible tariff on European goods could result in a severe decrease in the purchasing power of the Britons. The same goes for most manufactured goods: the British trade balance already is in deficit. And this is not even the biggest threat yet. One cannot stress enough how important the City is to the economy of the UK, and it might lose one of its most important tools to do business in Europe: the so-called financial passports. Since the UK is leaving the Single Market, British companies will no longer will be able to easily trade financial products with the rest of the EU members like they used to.

6 The many lobbies of the City now wish some kind of equivalent system will be implemented, though it is very unlikely to ever happen, considering it would imply that the UK abides by the ECJ - which it has decided no longer to do - and the hostility of the EU countries to grant the UK a status as favourable as one of a member. Considering the UK will also leave the Customs Union 9, its status actually would be worse than that of Turkey should no satisfying agreement be signed between the two entities. The list goes on. HSBC recently decided to move jobs over from London to Paris, experts are highly pessimistic regarding the negotiating power of the UK, Trump s election and him being first and foremost a businessman could also mean the US, a longtime, privileged partner of the UK, will not yield any ground when negotiating, barring what could have been a possible opportunity for a free UK. Theresa May is not done yet, though. She has many plans to make the UK more attractive, by decreasing its taxation rates, for instance. Notes: 1. European Economic Community, the political entity prior to the Maastricht Treaty 2. Towards a federal union rather than a confederation whose purpose is only economic 3. Nickname of the British conservative politicians 4. The free trade area between EU members 5. An agreement between the UK and Ireland allowing for little to no control when going from one country to the other 6. The most important British left-wing party. Jeremy Corbyn recently was elected as its leader 7. British Eurosceptic party. Nigel Farage was its former leader before he resigned 8. The British urban migration was considerable, especially compared to France. Around 82% of Britons live in large cities or urban areas 9. The agreement which allows for no restriction in the imports/exports of goods from/to Turkey

7 Topic B: The issue of borders in Europe I. Borders have always been an issue in Europe: Europe is almost the size of Brazil, but is composed of more than 40 states, and some of them are micro-state (Vatican, San Marino, Andorra, Lichtenstein). Therefore, borders always have been a conflictual issue, and many European countries have waged war in order to modify European borders. Most of the actual borders have been drawn at the Congress of Vienna in However, with the Second World War, the Cold War, and then the fall of the USSR, new borders have been defined (Poland, Yugoslavia ). For example, the Berlin wall was a physical border which separated Germany, but also the entire Europe. Even nowadays, physical borders are not definitely defined: nationalistic and patriotic discourses could result in the creation of new states in Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom etc. Of course, borders are part of the definition of states, but which borders define Europe? Historically, Western, Northern and Southern European borders have been delimited by oceans, but the Eastern border is less clear. Russian aristocrats decided that the Ural Mountains were the Eastern border of Europe so as Russia, and its capital was in Europe. However, the Ural Mountains are not a meaningful geographic border, and this lack of clear definition explains why countries such as Turkey claim that they are part of Europe. Europe is also divided politically, culturally and economically. Democracies and monarchies are cohabiting on the same territory, as presidential and parliamentary systems for example. Religion has been a factor of union and disunion. If Christianism was the main religion of the region, Europe was cut in two parts between Catholics and Protestants. Nowadays, Europe cannot be delimited by religion. Indeed, the inscription of Christian values in the project of European Constitution was rejected, but this is still a harsh debate. As a result, defining precisely European borders is impossible, and this is precisely at the core of Europe. The lack of definition permitted the construction of the European Union as we know it, and its evolutions.

8 II. Borders in Europe are always in evolution: With the enlargement of the Union's territory in 2007, the borders of the European Union are almost the same as Europe s borders. Starting from the 6 founding countries, there are nowadays 28 European Union s members, and the enlargement process is not over. Five procedures are in progress: Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Other countries may also ask to join the EU: Moldova, Kosovo or Bosnia and Herzegovina. The integration in the EU is a way to reduce cultural, political and economic borders. For example, the Copenhagen criteria are the rules that define whether a country is eligible to join the European Union or not. These criteria permit to homogenize economically, culturally and socially European countries. When it comes to the issue of borders in Europe, the case of Turkey is meaningful. 92% of its territory is in Asia, but the country is a bridge between Asia and Europe, and Turkey is technically pro-occidental, because it s a founding member of the UN, of NATO, of the OECD etc. The entry of Turkey in the European Union has been discussed since the 60 s. Negotiations began in 2005, but many people are against it because of cultural and political issues. In fact, Turkey is responsible for ethnic discrimination against Kurd and Armenian peoples, press is under control and the regime of Erdogan is less and less democratic. Moreover, the entry of Turkey would mean that the larger country of the EU would be Muslim, demographically speaking. It means that Turkey would have the greatest number of representatives in the European Parliament. Security is also a serious issue: if Turkey was part of the EU, the hot beds of the Middle East would be at the borders of the EU (Syria, Iraq ). Nevertheless, people such as Michel Rocard explain that the entry of Turkey would show that a Muslim country could be part of a democratic organization.

9 Borders are also at the core of the concept of the European Union. On one hand, the construction of the EU has already led to the erasure of many borders, such as economic border with the common market. But on the other hand, borders are still at stake and question the very definition of the EU. Should we create a federal organization? Should sovereignties be protected no matter what? These questions have been debated since the beginning of the construction. Nowadays, another concept is emerging, the Europe à la carte concept which multiplies borders. Indeed, discrepancies on the definition of Europe are drawing many different borders: the EU should focus on economic goals according to some people whereas others such as Greece are in favor of more social aims. However, the much debated-issue currently is the Schengen area. Is Schengen still a good idea? After the terrorist attacks in 2015, boarders have been closed in France, and on 25 th, January 2017, the European Commission authorized again several states (Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, Denmark) to extend their right to control their boarders. According to the Schengen Agreement, members of the area of freedom of movement have the possibility to temporarily control the entrance at their boarders if there is a threat on public order or security. Duration of controls can be extended to years in case of state s failure to control its external borders. The refugee crisis is also a reason why Schengen is currently criticized. Italia, Greece etc are inundated with arrivals of migrants and ask for help to protect European borders. As a result, security and the very principal of freedom of movement within the Schengen area are put into question. III. Economic borders: While one can argue about European geographic borders, it is hard to deny the very existence of economic borders. As a legacy of the Cold War, some countries are more developed than other. A clear delimitation between West and East is still visible, even years after the dismantling of the USSR. Eastern countries are remnants of communism while western countries have always showcased capitalism. Nowadays, the poorest regions of Europe are in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland with a GDP per capita lower than 40% of the European average. Those disparities also come out within countries. For instance, Western Ukraine is way richer than Eastern Ukraine. This alarming situation has quickly led to the creation of regional funds to help depressed regions, such as the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) that ensure economic cohesion within the EU.

10 However, if such differences do exist and create borders difficult to surmount, the European Union has been willing to enhance the economic well-being of its members for a long time. Indeed, since 1957, the Treaty of Rome has been the cornerstone of the common market. It turned into the unique market in 1992, erasing a little bit more economic borders. The establishment of the free movement of goods has speeded up the economic convergence of member states, especially bordering ones like Spain or Portugal. Nonetheless, the unique market raises many concerns and highlights deep rooted fears: fear of a freewheel market exploiting workers, fear of relocation, fear of traffics of all kinds It can partly explain the rise of extremist parties all over Europe, like UKIP, the National Front or the Austrian Freedom Party. While some may begrudge the European common market, it has also permitted some regions to rise and thrive, particularly trans-bordered ones. In the latter, borders no longer exist when it comes to trade. It has thus created bigger regions, made of several countries, the Euro-regions. The most prosperous one is known as the Northern Range. It designates the area North of France, leading up to the sea where several harborsconnect Europe to the world. European programs back these areas, such as Interreg. Borders are not perceived as obstacles anymore but more as resources and opportunities. Economically speaking the EU is composed of such various countries that it naturally created borders between them. The poor on one side, the rich on the other side. The hope lies in the economic reinforcement of the common market that would eventually make borders obsolete. Notes and further readings: