#uk citizens making voting decisions past couple decades

[nasty-creeps]

Recently, I talked to some people about the EU election results. Specifically our city and germany/our hometowns. For context it went pretty bad. Our "new" Nazi Party has gained a lot of votes compared to the last election. In my Hometown they got about 30% and where I live now, 17%.

And some might say "It's Germany. Of course there's Nazis" and fair. Sure besides the Oktoberfest, Nazis are kinda "our thing" or at least the most famous example that everyone points to. So, why is it still shocking to us and also pretty fucking scary?

Well, after WWII denazification was one of the main goals of the allied forces that won the war. Getting rid of leaders in any sort of high positions in Government and other influencial organisations. Punishing war criminals for their actions. Educating citizens to debunk the stuff the nazis convinced them of through their propaganda and structuring the state in a way that makes it harder to overtake the whole government and its decision-making by one party alone. Just to name some of them. The success was ... mid at best. There was a shortage of people who could replace the ones that formerly held different positions that also didn't have connections to the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei - national socialistic german workers party) themselves. And you also can't undo years of indoctrination and deeply held beliefs just like that. People obviously didn't necessarily agree or liked the new foreign administration either. They didn't all feel like they were saved or liberated.

And on top of that, the views that the Nazis stood for were actually not totally unpopular in other countries either. So not every part of the ideology was scrutinised by the occupying forces.

But for what it's worth, our people were confronted with their actions and the impact it had on the world. It's taught in schools and we are portrayed as "the bad guys" in our school books. Unlike some other countries like japan we were taught to feel ashamed of our past and semi held accountable to not repeat it.

The way the allies treated the citizens in the parts of Germany also impacts how the situation developed. Against popular belief this discussion is actually quite nuanced. But i won't get into this too much right now. As most people know, we were divided into east and west germany. The east (german democratic republic) was governed by the soviets and the west (german federal republic) by the US, France and the UK. In the cold war each half was exposed to "their side's" propaganda. Some of the stereotypes that evolved in that time still exists. And even the economic differences between east and west aren't yet eliminated entirely.

There is no point in time, where Nazism and what comes with it was eradicated here. But that's also just not possible. Domestic terror attacks against migrants, foreign workers, jews and other minorities still happend every once in a while. But over the last couple of decades the sympathy and acceptance for right-wing ideology has increased.

Up till 2013 most right wing parties didn't make it very far. Sometimes they were semi popular in regional elections but on a larger scale, they were often overlooked and disliked/rejected by the general population. That year tho, the "AFD" (Alternative for Germany) was founded. They gained followers uncomfortably quickly over the following years. At first their program was kinda "tame" in a way and they targeted the middle-class. In the EU elections 2014 their focus was mainly on the tightening of the right to asylum, rejection of Islam as a "part of German culture", gun laws and their disapproval of the EU.

Over time their demands have become more and more radical and they are now categorised as a right-wing extremist party. They pushed the boundaries of what they can say without being immediately scrutinised and made their talking points more and more socially acceptable. The good old "you can't say anything in this country anymore without getting cancelled"-argument is one of their go to's. And people unfortunately were very receptive to that.

Back to the conversation that I had with my co-workers. Thinking that a third or fifth of the people in your area agree with the views of a right-wing extremist party is obviously scary. Especially if you are so aware of how that went for us in the past. And a lot of people might not even actually agree with them and just vote for the party "out of protest" because they are unhappy with their own situation.

Being critical when it comes to what the state does is kinda what we were told to do after the war too, so unsurprisingly voting for a party that advertises themselves as against the status quo, can be taken as doing exactly that. In this case it's not because of their goals but out of principle. Showing the established parties that you don't approve of what they're doing.

We have tons of small parties here tho, to give you an impression the list for the recent EU election was literally as long as my leg, so why not vote for them instead? Maybe one of those does actually align with your own ideology and you still vote against the people that are in power atm. This might come from our voting system for general/national elections. Theres a thing called the "5%-Hürde" which basically means that a party has to get at least 5% of the votes to get a spot at the table. So if you vote for a small party that might not make it over that line you "waste" your vote. This is not the case for the EU-Parliament but I suspect that a lot of people just have that in mind and apply it to every election.

One of my coworkers kid, held a "fake election" at their school as a project. And as much as we want to think that right-wing ideology is a thing of the past and its the old people (who make up a pretty high percentage of the german population) are the problem in all this, that doesn't seem to be the case. The AFD scored a similarly high percentage among the school kids as irl. Some who were willing to give a reason why they'd vote for them stating "out of protest" as well.

So it's pretty clear that this shit is kinda fucked up.

How did we get here?

Well, these are my thought on that one. The west (BRD), as previously stated, was exposed to the anti-communist/socialist propaganda that a lot of the western world pushed intensively. Their neighbours were under soviet ruling and there were many horror stories about the living situation in the east (DDR) that were often true. Sometimes exaggerated for sure but true non the less. But there wasn't a lot of moderation or information to put them into perspective so the general opinion was that the eastern German people were all oppressed and needed to be liberated from the communists. After the reunion the west came out on top and for the most part their way of living was seen as the goal for society as a whole. The economical changes that the reunion brought had a pretty rough influence on the east tho. Many lost their jobs, tons went to the west to find new work, so the population shrank which in turn made it less attractive for companies that could bring the area the needed jobs. Pay was also lower and without the government set prices for basic goods that they had up till then, their wages weren't enough to make a living anymore.

Anyways. Still, the anti-soviet mentality swapped over to the east as well and schools adapted the narrative in history and politics classes over the years.

So the "west = good, Russia = bad" thinking is very present here too.

People are wary of "leftist" ideas because leftist ideology is often equated with "communist" Russia. Even tho Russia isn't and never was actually communist or socialist.

And since those have such a bad name, people are hesitant to vote for left wing parties even if it would just be a protest vote.

With the AFD gaining popularity, the "established" parties also adjusted their programs from "centrist" (very broad) to right leaning out of fear to lose more voters, since these talking points seemed to appeal to voters in general. (Not necessarily tho because protest voters didn't entirely support the actual ideology but just did it out of principle)

So we have a right wing extremist party that gains popularity, a government, that is more and more catering to the right because they are scared to loose their power and a general dislike for the left. Or at least people don't really consider voting for them in the first place subconsciously.

But how come that Nazi Ideation isn't equally disliked considering Germany's history, I hear you cry. Welp. I'd suggest populism and the human trait of wanting easy, practical solutions to their problems, ideally without having to change anything about themselves or their lives. Which is valid, who wouldn't want that? Unfortunately tho, real life isn't that easy. There are so many nuances to basically all issues that impact the outcome and solutions. And often it can take years or decades to fix a system but we want it fixed now.

Also informing yourself and learning, isn't something that everyone is really interested in or has the capacity to do in daily life. Which is also relatable. We usually pick up titbits here and there and make our conclusions based on those without having a full picture. And often we don't even realise those small excerpts aren't all there is to know. If you think you got it right, why research if it actually is.

These things are normal and won't change.

About populism, although no "side" is innocent of using it to gain a following and attention, on a larger scale, the left is more hesitant to use that tool, while the right fully embraces it. It's not based on facts but on feelings and long held beliefs of the people they try to appeal to. Facts can be boring, uncomfortable, depressing and are for nerds. They don't bring the effortless, easy solutions to your problems. They often make things even more difficult.

While the right and the left are both "against the state", the left tends to try to stay with the facts and makes their proposals based on those. Since the solutions often involve things like "changing your ways", "having to give up on certain luxuries" and stuff like that, it's not surprising, that they are seen as the party pooper. The right tells the people what they want to hear. Easy "fixes" for anything that sometimes, at the first glance, look solid but pretty much immediately fall apart if you take a closer look.

On top of that, the right uses peoples "fears" and the narratives that have been put in our heads for ages to further discourage them from questioning their views. Nobody likes to be proven wrong. And hey there's other people confirming what I believe so it must be right. The latter is also true for most people unrelated to their political alliance. I won't blame anyone for that and more often than not, I probably do the same. We trust our "common sense", although we might have different definitions of what that actually means.

Another thing that I won't blame anyone for is that they don't wanna be bummed out by even more things. Most people are aware of problems that they are confronted with in their bubble. And since there are countless issues in the world that need to be fixed, usually your bandwidth is already exhausted with that. Being confronted with more injustices can be super overwhelming.

Especially if the issues aren't directly connected and you can't fix them with the same solution.

Here the right often goes with "its the migrants/leftists fault! They are ruining it for you.". Blame it on others. You are not the problem, so you don't have to change. Just call people out on it. Easy fix. Get rid of the "intruders" or just be mad at the left. No context for what consequences the whole thing might have or coherent (tho often well presented) explanation of how these things go together. Also polarising, quirky and relatable as the kids (people in their mid 20s and 30s) would say.

The left has their thing too. "The patriarchy and capitalism". But you know, to get behind that, you first need to know what these things actually are. So from the start it requires you to learn. And it makes it looks like you expect from everyone to know what it is, which in turn seems elitist. Those are not words you use in daily life. Plus, as i said before, we've been told that communism is the opposite of capitalism (which its not) so being against capitalism must mean you want to live like people in Russia or China (because that's what too many people think living under communism would be like).

Besides that, "send people away" is, again at first glance, an easier solution than dismantling systemic structures that have been influencing our societal evolution for millenia. And you'd probably have to do something yourself to achieve it instead of just pointing a finger at someone else. Who wants to do that.

And (hopefully) the last thing is that the right is less hesitant to spread lies and don't fear to be proven wrong. Because they already know that they are wrong and their goal is not to be truthful. They count on people's lack of interest to check their beliefs. And since their suggested solutions sound so easy, there's no need to do research to understand it.

Another random train of thoughts, the right doesn't call themselves Nazis and don't like to be called Nazis. Instead they present themselves as conservatives, that they want to protect traditions and so on. And when we think about traditions, things like Christmas or Easter celebrations come to mind. Not the systematic oppression of minorities.

The left is aware that they can't use their potential catch phrases or words because, as we have already established, socialism has a bad name and you need to have a certain amount of specific knowledge to understand them. So they rely on at least being more or less factual. Their followers also do (and this is my assumption) care about if what they are told is true.

So my "conclusion" in lack of a better word is, the left is at a disadvantage by default due to the anti-leftist propaganda that was force fed to several generations from childhood on as well as their values of providing solutions that are factual and at least more or less considerate of consequences. They are the "nay-sayers" of society, like the kid in school that reminds the teacher that they had homework. The right are the "cool kids", that are spontaneous and lighthearted, who "just do things" because they are chill that way.

If they'd adapt the methods that the right uses, they would do exactly the opposite of what they're trying to embody.

I don't have a solution to this. We can try and educate kids better and less biased but to be honest, they do have other stuff on their minds. Figuring out growing up and who they are, how to interact with their peers, pressure to pass school, hormones and so much more. We can keep trying to debunk the rights claims but usually end up preaching to the choir. You might be able to convince a few but it's unlikely that it will change the opinion of the masses.

What I think we SHOULD do is, when trying to have an actual conversation, to not look down on them even if they do too. And to choose out battles wisely. We won't convince the loud people who already are dead set on their views and get defensive the moment someone tries to question them. There's not really anything we can do to change their minds. They may eventually see their belief system fall apart and hopefully some of them won't be too deep into denial to change their minds. Leaving the loud ones alone might still fuck it up at the end tho since they are unfortunately the ones that get heard.

We need to normalise being wrong and changing our minds/reassessing a situation. So less people will feel ashamed of their past beliefs. It does take quite a bit of courage to do that.

And although it puts us at a disadvantage, we shouldn't let go of our own value of telling the truth, even if uncomfortable or unpopular. Because if people do lose trust in a group that told them lies the whole time, they will be scared to walk right into another one of these cults again.

[half1house]

Dear British friends,... (a rant from the continent)

This is an overly long opinion piece and a kinda vicious rant. But I have to get this off my chest because at this point in time I am lost for words to describe the incredible thing that is Brexit, therefore I'm interested in the opinion of British and other non-British people. For a couple of months now I've been watching in awe several times a month how the House of Commons, your parliament, the elected representatives of the British people, have taken up the shovel and started digging. It is a strange and surreal experience, like standing next to burning orphanage: It is horrible but I can't stop watching. Mere days ago HoC voted down every single proposal to at least mitigate some of the damage and there has not been any outburst of common sense, a thing the British always were famous for, since. To be blunt, for me it was the straw that broke the camels back.

I am a German and I don't know whether my views reflect a majority or minority. I'm an engineer in the chemical industry and I have travelled to Britain often during the last 15 years. I strolled trough the countryside, I visited the big cities, I have been surprised about the excellent restaurants even in places I'd never have expected (namely the "Old School Restaurant" on the Isle of Skye. If you are there, have yourself a treat and pay it a visit!). I have met a lot of wonderful people during my visits to Britain, both on holiday and on business travels. I like Britain. A lot.

And therefore it is hard to see her leave EU. To me Brexit came not so much as a shock but as a situation forcing a decision on my part too. It is sad to be left by and have to abandon you as an EU member, but it won't break my heart and in their current state neither the government nor parliament, nor the people of the UK look as if they could contribute to the EU in any meaningful way.

Every single person I know thinks and most newspapers state about the offical stance of your government that it relfects a situation in which both the people as a whole and the government of the UK either don't know what can realistically be achieved or don't know what they really want at all. All polls show significant support for either side with still only relatively narrow majorities. HoC sessions during the last weeks embody this problem. It is the most undesireable state of affairs in the current situation. Regardless of your future relationship with the EU, roughly half your population will be deeply unhappy. There is no unequivocal Will Of The People.

The blame game has already begun and since a huge part of your population has been swallowing untrue or at least grossly exaggerated anti-EU-crap for decades I have no hope that a significant portion of those will see through the lies. I fully expect roughly half the British to blame EU for the shitshow Brexit their government put together. If fully expect HoC to reflect that blame. And therefore in my opinion in the long run it is best for EU if UK is out as quickly as possible (but prefarble when EU is ready and europhile British have set their plans for movement to EU in motion).

After the first vote in the House of Commons I watched it became clear to me that the majority of MP's don't give two single fucks about a workable solution. I don't know whether it is mostly party politics, personal animosities, cognitive dissonance, sheer incompetence or a mélange of everything. At this point in time UK is not governed well and her people are not represented by men and women capable of managing a task like withdrawing from EU. I feel sad but finally a thought that has lurked around somewhere in the background all the time has now come to the forefront: I don't want a second referndum. I don't want UK revoking A50 at the eleventh hour.

I don't want UK inside EU. I want her out. I want her out for good.

This is neither funny nor amusing. It will affect me negatively personally because I like travelling to Britain and therefore I've given it a lot of thought. It's a hard decission. It comes with a lot of problems for everyone involved. It will make us all poorer, it will make UK prone to falling prey to American and Chinese interests. It will weaken EU politically. But still I want UK out of EU. This situation is forcing a decission as binary as the initial referendum was: In or Out. As we say in Germany: Halbschwanger gibt's nicht (you can't be half-pregnant).

Two years ago I would have been happy had HMG decided that it were in their best interest to abandon the exit and HoC had supported that decision. But two years ago the world was vastly different. Only few companies had set their plans for relocation out of UK in motion, the war rethoric wasn't as widespread and a working cross-party solution seemed at least not impossible.

In my view the most crucial mistake your government made was thinking of the negotiation as a game of poker or a haggle at the bazar. I would call that the layman's approach to negotiation because I often meet it. Laymen tend to think negatiation means being secretive, playing tough and who blinks first loses - but that is not how it's done in the real world. In the real world negotiators are well prepared with data and know the strengths and weaknesses of their counterparts and their own. They use their leverage to assert compromise, not dominance. Instead of consulting actual business negotiators or senior civil servants HMG and many influential people like the ERG thought playing tough and not blinking first were viable strategies. They never really tried to assess what possibillities were on the table and what could realistically be achieved. That's why to this day, not two weaks away from the cliff-edge, no open debate about what kind of Brexit HMG should persue was held in Britain. And that's why they so fundamentally misunderstood how the EU operates and do so to this very day.

They have failed to grasp that EU is first and formost an entity driven by procedure. This is a neccessity to ensure that two dozon chicks waddle at least roughly in the same direction. Therefore EUs insistance on a clear structuring of the leave process. Even in 2019 HMG have tried to negotiate with individual countries or shift the goal posts and even today they are still baffled that this approach didn't turn out well.

This goes much deeper than just the Brexit negotiatons: One of the frequent criticisms of EU is that the members could never agree on anything or constantly veto each other for parochial reasons. But in practice they do agree and don't veto each other most of the time and a lot of things get done. The stance of EU during the entire Brexit process has been consistent, clear and unanimous. EU won't blink. EU will do what her representatives say. EU has one of the most efficient bureaucracies in the world - 60.000 civil servants in Brussels and Strassbourg may be a lot of people in absolute terms but the city of München alone has roughly 40.000 civil servants and the city of Hamburg has 100.000 so in relative terms it is not even that large.

They have failed to realise that on a world scale the EU practically is Europe. Even without UK she contains about 60 % of the citizens, 80 % of GDP and practically all the political weight on the continent. Every single country not being a member is extremely closely aligned. Norway and Switzerland for that matter are all but members without voting rights. Even Belarus and Russia have lots of treaties and despite all the sabre rattling of the past two decades get along with each other pretty well in the long run. Unless Britain can be towed across the atlantic to the Americas there is no way in the world that the continent will not be her most important political and economic partner. Sheer geographic proximity is still and for the foreseable future will probably continue to be the most important factor when it comes to trade and alliences.

They have failed to realise that Devide And Conquer won't work. It should have been clear at the very beginning of negotiations when PM May travelled to half a dozen EU countries she hoped to negotiate with sperately only to be told that the negotiations had to be conducted with the EU, not Austria, France, Germany, etc. Many people say that this was going to show first and foremost, that the British government after 40 years of membership still have no clue about the meaning and the inner workings of the EU despite being a highly influential member. I have heard people opine that at some point in time HMG started to believe their own spin about EU being hopelessly devided all the time. Sadly I too think this assessment is acurate.

They have failed to realise that the four freedoms are the single market and for nearly all practical purposes the single market is the EU. They are are not negotiable because abandoning one of them would be the end of the single market and consequently the EU. And regardless to your opinion on whether the EU is overall positive or negative, no one in their right mind can realistically expect the EU to tear up herself.

They have grossly overestimated their importance for the continental industry. I'm an engineer in the chemical industry and our approach to brexit can be summed up like this: It's a shame but if you must, please leave in an orderly fashion. You will be missed but ultimately the EU is of more importance to us because it's the bigger market to sell to and buy from, the bigger economic area and the vastly more powerful political entity. If you leave in an orderly fashion there will be some disturbances but ultimately your industry will still be valuable. If you crash out there will be a period of trouble and disorder after which a lot of business will be gone. So please avoid that on all cost. Again keep in mind: Losing you will be expensive but losing the EU will be desastrous. So be in no doubt as to the seriousness of your position.

They have failed to understand continental and particularly French and German foreign policy after world war II. By far the most important topic for our foreign policy is keeping peace with our neighbours and deepen our economic and cultural interactions in order to cement this peace. This is in fact where the whole project of a united Europe started from in the early 1950's, when French foreign minister Schuman and German chancellor Adenauer signed a treaty about Franco-German coal and steel production that quickly morphed into the ECSC, than the EEC and ultimately the EU. With the very first paragraph of the Treaty of Rome stating exactly that. A lot of British people still think EU started as a pure trade community but that is wrong. As early as 1951 the ECSC contained the seeds of all the departments, bodies and organs of todays EU.

They have failed to grasp that while we don't want you to leave we won't fight to keep you in. We have no obligation to help you beyond what is in our best interest. We don't want to punish you but we won't let you keep your benefits when leaving. The responsibility of the EU is first and foremost to the members of the EU - which you aren't going to be anymore soon. We will do our best to make the EU a success - it is your own responsibility to make Britain a success. We will do everything we can to ensure that EU comes out of this mess in the best possible way. If along that way Uk also comes out in the best possible way, we will all be pleased. If UK sinks into chaos we won't be pleased at all but again: Being successful out of EU is UK's responsibility. Please keep that in mind: We are not against you. We are for us.

They don't understand why the members of the EU stand firm in the current situation. There's an expression so German there isn't a proper english idiom: "Pack schlägt sich, Pack verträgt sich" which means that, whereas members of a group are prone to fight with each other, they are equally prone to make peace again quickly, especially when confronted with a sitatuation concerning the group as a whole. A situation, for instance, like Brexit. Many people in Brtain grossly overestimate the problems of member states, particularly their problems with the EU.

They have overestimated the anti-EU sentiment on the continent. While it is true that a lot of people are openly critical or even against EU there is no mainstream party openly campaigning for their country to leave anymore. Even in France, Germany and Italy the tone of that parties has considerably mellowed. In Britain anti-EU fringe is mainstream politics and has been for as long as I can remember. Goverments of France, Germany, etc. are dealing with their political extremists but in blaming the EU for every decission of British politics (No ID cards, low taxes, low regulation, lack of industrial policy, privatising vital assets, crushing workers rights, etc.) successive British governments have actively persued anti-EU populsim and in effect executed anti-EU agendas by chosing to leave the EU. You don't have to be affraid of a rise of a new fringe party or a rebirth of UKIP, because you have the Conservative Party and the anti-EU wing of Labour. Even without UKIP and the like anit-EU sentiment is a strong force in your political environment.

Successive British governments have loudly blamed the EU for politics completely within their realm of responsibility. Even further: They have loudly embraced the anti-immigrant and anti-EU crowd while at the same time doing exactly the opposite: You are governed by the same PM who sent Vans saying "Go Home!" through high-immigration boroughs and oversaw the windrush scandal while doing bugger all to excersise any meaningful form of control over immigration (COMPLETE for non-EU- and VAST for EU-immigration). You are governed by the very party that kept blaming the EU for any interior British problems despite the fact that they were home grown. Examples: EU regulation on immigration has been written largly by British lawmakers in the 1990. Immigration doesn't need to be unrestricted under EU regulation. It is your government that chose for 25 years not to excersise their options. The large disparity in income has nothing to do with EU regulation - in fact Britain always has been a pain in the ass when it comes to further regulation and strengthening workers rights (Remember how Thatcher crushed the Unions?).

Going full turbo-capitalism and trying to pull off a Singapore most likely is also no realistic option because an area state like UK is significantly different to a city state. Dropping all tariffs would probably either destroy the remaining manufacturing or forcing much harsher conditions on British workers. In addition the national distribution of wealth would be even more shifted towards the large cities, because the one top-tier world class industry UK has is financial services which are overwhelmingly provided by firms in those large cities.

Your government tried to negotiate with individual EU countries dozens of times during the last 2,5 years and was denied every single time. Of course politicians clad the message in fine talking along the lines of "Of course we are looking forward to mutally attractive trade aggreements after Britain leaves the EU" or "We are prepared to basically copy the agreements that be" but I am quite certain that the very moment after Britains departure has been in force, she will be swarmed by cohorts of negotiators from basically every conutry in the world saying things along the lines of "Of course we would like to have the basically same deal. Juuuuuust some minor adjustments here and there and here too and, oh, also over there. And that point we surely can drop at all but this one we'd like to discuss a little further...".

Please keep in mind that for close to three years now UK has been loudly announcing to the world that after four decades of discussion she was unable to agree on a clear idea of what her position in the world should look like after Brexit. The referendum was almost three years ago. And still the question has not been answered by UK. Surely many individual opinions float around but HMG haven't managed to form a coherent strategy by taking them into due account. Instead you got soundbites like "Brexit Means Brexit" and "Will Of The People" and "We voted to leave" without defining what options to persue. The rest of the world know this. They can see it with their very eyes and hear it with their very ears. They've been watching! They've been taking notes! I am absolutely certain that whole branches of the civil services of all the major and emerging nations are working overtime to review all the treaties they now have with EU in order to find items they could renegotiate to their advantage with UK. For the last three years private and public executives have taken notice of the negotiation process and how UK conducted herself in contrast to EU. Be in no doubt which entity is regarded as the more professional, better prepared, reasonable, stable and united one. Especially after the latest parliamentary sessions.

In my opinion Britain at this point in time has a MASSIVE problem with herself, exemplified through the division amongst MP of either party, parliament as a whole, subgroups in HMG and a public that is roughly split in half over the question of Brexit. In my humble opinion the damage UK in her current state could inflict on EU as a whole in the immediate future is far greater than she could as a third country, even after a hard Brexit. Surely, A50 could be revoked tomorrow but there is no way in the world to undo the effects of Brexit. In her current state Britain as an EU member would likely sent outright EU enemies to the European Parliament. She would be a pain int the ass in any future decission and discussion - even if HMG would want to stay in EU in the goodest of faiths the rift running through the public and the HoC would still be there and continue to be a ball and chain to anything the EU27 would want to get done. Im totally absolutely positively certain that not five years after a possible revokation of A50 the PM would arrive in Brussels for renegotiation of UKs terms of membership. I am equally certain British politicians of either party would continue to shift the blame for their unpopular decissions on EU (that British press will do so is a given regardless of the outcome of Brexit). There is deep disparity between the city and the countryside, the poor people and the rich, the well educated and the not well educated. As far as I can see far deeper than for instance in France, Germany or Italy. If UK government won't be able to fix this they (I'm pretty sure they won't) will look for a scapegoat and this will most likely be EU. Therefore I don't want British MEP. I don't want people of a country leaving EU in the near future to have seats and influence or even sabotage decisions in the European Parliament. I particularly don't want the likes of Farage there. I don't want EU hampared by pointless obstruction of MEP who won't have to live with the consequences.

It is, in my humble opinion, positively bat-shit crazy to consider the party that is now in government, the party that went full steam austerity, the party that is home to the most vicious desaster capitalists currently influencing British politics, the party that it is even deeper rooted by private networks than my garden is by the blackberry on the adjacent meadow, the very party that has achieved next to nothing in almost three years time will champion a new soically sound domestic policy improving the lives of the poor and precarious after having left EU.

It is, again in my humble opinion, at least very naive to assume that the current opposition, lead by a life-long anti-EU campaigner and with a strong anti-EU wing of her own, having not taken a clear stance on whether to be in favour or against Brexit, under the constraints the loss of all those international treaties will pose, can implement even a small portion of their proposed legislation with success.

And thusly, as a German and EU citizen who wants as little fallout from your internal problems as possible to go down over the rest of Europe, I want you out of EU. Obviously neither HMG nor HoC nor a sizable part of the public can be trusted to rely on EU for anything but her being a whipping girl for her internal struggles and unpopular decissions. I don't suspect this to stop, change or even gain significant backlash in the next years.

This is not only recognized by little old me, but certainly by decission makers all around the globe. UK, once upon a time the mightiest and most adored nation in the world, home to the finest scientists, industries and ruler over a quarter of the earths surface not hundred years ago, will soon have cut herself off one of the biggest, richest and most powerful blocs in the world. UK will than govern roughly 1/100 of world population, less than 1/100 of military personnel, 2 % of wealth without any meaningful treaty, besides her NATO membership, to anyone anymore. She will be on her own. A ship on the high seas with a crew that can't even set a course after years of discussion. Please keep in mind that on the world scale UK, when anything besides financial services is considered, is a high-wage-low-productivity country. Practically all your industries are heavily dependend on, and heavily aligned to frictionless trade. Domestic farming for instance provides UK people with locally produced food (People everywhere love to eat "homegrown"), manufacturing often provides well paid work outside the big cities and in rural areas. Without the political power of EU and the hundreds of treaties with other countries she provides, UK is sigificantly weakening the prospects of her remaining industries.

This is not news. A lot of people in UK know this. A lot of people all around the globe know this. I still hope that there can be an agreement found in the next week, but with each day going by it looks less likely to me. Still a lot of people can't imagine what sort fo havoc a No-Deal Brexit is bound to wreak but I fear they are going to be in for a serious reality check very soon. It is a cold world after all.

Take care.

from

[venturecapitalbusinessdefinition]

Venture Capital

The united kingdom and particularly London has prolonged been found as probably the greatest sites to begin and venturecapital.news/fintech/london/ Make a company. Boasting its “Silicon Roundabout” inside the East of London, undertaking capitalists and business owners have flooded for the region's money as its thriving economic climate continues to rival San Francisco.

During the last couple of years, the financial landscape has some what modified inside the US, UK and in Europe. The US has viewed a modify of presidency plus the UK and Europe are experiencing their unique political roller coaster as the united kingdom appears to independent from the European Union.

In addition to modifications during the financial and political weather, Now we have found during the last ten years additional European challenger cities arise within the technological know-how sector and according to this, VCs and Angel Investors carries on to have a look at these emerging hubs for expenditure prospects.

United kingdom vs. Europe

The united kingdom and Irish based firms go ahead and take lion's share when it comes to Over-all funding accounting for forty% of Europe's complete VC financial commitment. The UK's investment more than doubles the expense in Germany and triples investment in France.

Despite the Brexit vote, We have now viewed an increase in VC investment decision in 2017 in the UK with £2.four billion of undertaking cash currently being pumped into British tech corporations For the reason that referendum. The truth is, Even though British isles VC investments are up, funding in Europe has fallen through this time.

A possible Shift in Landscape

While about the deal with of it, all things glimpse rosy On the subject of the expense outlook in the united kingdom as funding rises 12 months on yr, the Brexit shadow proceeds to hang around the know-how sector.

As negotiations proceed to occur involving the EU and UK about its divorce with the block, it is largely agreed by corporations (from startup to blue chip) that its membership to the single current market and entry to methods with the independence of movement of EU citizens has intended that the United kingdom could be found being a significantly less appealing location to do small business than ahead of exiting and this is probably going to possess a change on new enterprises beginning along with the knock on will likely be less VC funding. We now have previously observed long proven Global firms which include JP Morgan, Citigroup and Lloyds of London publically claim that they will be relocating quite a few Positions within the UK to your EU in the coming a long time.

The Main European Towns Attracting Venture Capital

Stockholm - With in excess of 50,000 builders plus more unicorns per capita than anywhere else on this planet other than San Francisco, Stockholm is surely an ever rising city for attracting venture cash and amazing firms. VCs including Nordic Undertaking Network, Northzone and Creandum have continued to aid mature challenger organizations in the city that brought us Skype, Mojang and King.

Berlin - The city that Launched Soundcloud and Researchgate and residential to the notorious Rocket World wide web, Berlin provides a flourishing VC funded startup scene which has seen a huge degree of growth over the past five decades.

Helsinki - The Finnish town of Helsinki is a escalating space for gaming enterprise funding. Providers like Rovio which developed Offended Birds and Supercell which created Clash from the Clans are just a couple names in a increasing listing of properly-funded startups that have emerged from Helsinki.

Amsterdam - Scheduling.com and TomTom are two of a variety of VC funded unicorns which have been http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/venture capital built-in Amsterdam. We are looking at town extra accelerators and incubators emerge, and is also staying found by a lot of London primarily based companies as an acceptable publish-Brexit different specified the gap in the British cash.

London - Sure There is certainly instability in London, but its deep routes are so robust that they seem to be defying the odds because it proceeds for being the place for undertaking funds in Europe. An incredible 275,000 startups utilizing 1.5 million persons, London continues to see multiple billions every year originate from enterprise funds into its companies.

[goldeagleprice]

Mayflower Quadricentenary Numismatic Program: Does it matter that it is not a congressionally mandated commemorative?

Background photo by AgnosticPreachersKid.

By Louis Golino

In 2020, the U.S. Mint will issue a $10 gold coin and accompanying silver medal to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower landing in 1620. This program was not authorized by congressional legislation and is being issued using the Mint’s existing legal authority to strike bullion gold coins and silver medals at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. It should prove to be a popular program if buyers embrace the designs, especially since over 10 million Americans can trace their heritage to the Mayflower.

2019 Apollo 11 50-cent coins.

In recent years, sales of U.S. Mint commemorative coins slumped sharply, except primarily for the 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame 75th anniversary program, and to a lesser degree, this year’s Apollo 11 50th anniversary coins. With only two programs allowed by law per year, most collectors want to see coins about topics of broader, national interest such as major historic events and anniversaries rather than service groups the Lions Club or Boys Town.

Members of Congress have proposed a number of commemorative coin programs on issues more likely to appeal to a broader audience, but legislation on those programs often fails. A case in point is the upcoming 400th anniversary of the landing in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620 of a group of religious and political separatists — more-often called pilgrims — who fled England, and before that, the Netherlands.

In 2016 and 2017 — during the 114th and 115th Congresses — bills were introduced to issue a commemorative coin program for the Mayflower anniversary, but those bills failed to garner enough support to move forward and died at the end of their respective Congresses.

2020 Basketball Coins

As of now, only one congressionally authorized commemorative program is in place for 2020 for the 60th anniversary of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. The Mint recently announced the start of a design competition for the obverse of the coin, while the reverse will depict a basketball and will presumably be prepared by the Mint’s staff or Artistic Infusion program artists.

Like the baseball and Apollo coins, the basketball issue will also be concave on its obverse and convex on its reverse. Collectors have embraced this format with enthusiasm, which was reflected in strong sales for those programs. But with the novelty of the shape having worn off, it will be interesting to see what role the domed shape plays in the 2020 basketball coins.

Legal Authority

2009 ultra high relief Gold Double Eagle coin obverse. Hover to zoom.

Because of congressional inaction on the Mayflower program, U.S. Mint officials recently decided to issue such coins using the legal authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bullion gold coins without congressional approval — a provision that is part of 31 U.S. Code 5112 (i) (4) (C). This authority has been used during the past decade to create a number of gold numismatic coins such as the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle, the 2014-W Kennedy gold half dollar, the 2016-W centennial Liberty gold coins and the 2015 and 2017 American Liberty gold coins.

The provision specifically grants authority to: “The [Treasury] Secretary in minting and issuing other bullion and proof gold coins under this subsection in accordance with such program procedures and coin specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time,” provided the “profits generated from the sale of gold to the United States Mint for this program shall be considered as a receipt to be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury.”

Using this authority, the Mint plans to issue a 24 karat, one-quarter-ounce $10 gold coin and accompanying one-ounce silver medal to mark the quadricentennial of the Mayflower landing — an event that plays a major part in the narrative of American history.

Royal Mint Connection

In addition, the Mint is partnering with the Royal Mint of the United Kingdom to release a special set that will also include a UK coin. Mint officials say that this set will help “to more fully tell the story” of the Mayflower landing. The gold coin and silver medal from the U.S. Mint will be offered both individually and in the set with the Royal Mint coin, whose details remain unknown today.

Other specifics are also currently unavailable on the U.S. Mint coin and medal such as the fineness and planchet size of the silver medal (though if they follow the pattern followed several times, but not always in recent years, it will be the same size as an American Silver Eagle, or 40.6 millimeters).

The Mint’s spokesman Michael White told Coin World on April 9 that the gold coin would be .9167 fine, which is what is used for American Gold Eagles. But during an April 16 meeting of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee to review proposed designs for the Mayflower program, Mint officials said the gold coin would instead be 24 karats, or .999 fine, which is what is used for the American Gold Buffalo coins, and that it would be one-quarter ounce in weight.

“Not A Commemorative”

Mint officials also stated that the Mayflower program is not a commemorative coin program as such, with Mr. White telling Coin World’s Paul Gilkes on April 9:

This is not a commemorative coin program and has nothing to do with any proposed legislation.

He went on to cite the legal authority for the program specified above.

The program includes a silver medal rather than coin because a coin would require congressional approval. The silver medal’s legal authority is contained in 31 U.S. Code 5111 (a) (2), which allows the Secretary of the Treasury to strike medals provided they do not interfere with regular minting operations.

The Mint’s move to issue the program this way has sparked a degree of controversy within the numismatic community. For example, Bill Gibbs, editor of Coin World, penned an editorial dated April 29 that was published on April 13, in which he called it a “wrong-headed decision.” Noting that all the previous coins issued under the cited legal provision dealt in some way with Liberty, and that the Mint is acting to create a program which the Congress considered, but rejected. He concluded that the Mint “is taking that authority in a dangerous direction.”

On the other hand, CoinWeek applauded the Mint’s move, saying:

We wholeheartedly support the Mint’s decision to expand its numismatic portfolio and feel that they should continue to be aggressive in this regard.

As for collectors, few have chimed in specifically on this matter, but one poster on the Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum said:

I am glad that the mint director stepped in to make this happen where Congress failed to act, but gold is a bit pricey for most people, especially non-collectors, and the organizations that would have benefitted from the surcharges in a commemorative coin program will lose out. But it is better than nothing, and good for Mr. Ryder for getting it done.

Overall, there seems to be a lot more support than opposition to the move. The real test will be whether the Mayflower program is successful in terms of sales, especially since the legal authority for programs without congressional authority says they are intended to generate funds sent to the General Fund of the Treasury, which help reduce the federal debt.

And sales should be helped by the fact that the coins do not come with the usual surcharges attached to commemorative issues that are later sent to recipient organizations once costs are covered. This should result in a lower price point for the Mayflower coin and medal that would be the case if they were commemoratives.

Design Review

On April 16, the CCAC reviewed an extensive portfolio of designs for the 2020 Mayflower program. At the beginning of the discussion, Ms. Stafford of the Mint staff said:

To develop the design portfolio, the Mint worked with a panel of subject matter experts who helped identify the concepts as well as the impact the Mayflower voyage had on the pilgrims, the Wampanoag Indians, and the history of our country.

This statement draws attention to the importance of developing designs that are historically accurate and culturally sensitive, especially with respect to the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims establish their colony.

Relations between the two groups later deteriorated sharply. Not to mention that the way the Thanksgiving story is typically recounted, as is also true of the overall story of the Pilgrims and how they interacted with the Indians, bears little resemblance to what really happened.

09A-SM-R — 2020 Mayflower 400th Anniversary 24K Gold Coin & Silver Medal Program

The issues raised by that complex history were on full display during the meeting — most notably in comments from CCAC members about the historic inaccuracy of many of the designs, and from comments from the Wampanoag 400 Committee representative, who said she would request government to government consultations about the program.

11-SM-R — 2020 Mayflower 400th Anniversary 24K Gold Coin & Silver Medal Program

In the end, the design review committee did not reach a consensus on any designs, though a couple of them did garner a substantial number of votes. They then voted to have the staff of the Mint select those designs they feel will best pair with the UK coin, while specifying this should not constitute a precedent.

1920 MS-68 toned Pilgrim half dollar.

During the meeting, one member brought up the silver half dollar issued in 1920 and 1921 for the 300th anniversary of the Mayflower — the Pilgrim Tercentenary coins — which is among the more popular classic issues. He pointed out that unlike that coin, the 2020 issues will also depict the Wampanoag Indians, which was reflected in many of the designs considered at the meeting.

For some collectors, doing that is acting in a “politically correct” manner. Yet not including them in the artwork would do a major disservice to the complex history of these events and the important role the Indians played in the eventual success of Plymouth Colony.

The 1920 Pilgrim half dollar, which was struck again in 1921, even though a quarter of the 1920 mintage was sent back to the Mint to be melted, featured a depiction on its obverse of Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford sporting the tall-brimmed hats pilgrims wore and holding a Bible in his left hand. The reverse showed the Mayflower ship with its large sails.

Implications

For most coin collectors, it is the subject matter and designs, as well as mintages, that matter to them — not whether the coin is a commemorative or another numismatic issue, irrespective of whether the program was authorized by Congress.

2013 Girl Scouts of the USA centennial silver dollar (obverse).

Commemorative coin programs created through the traditional route primarily benefit recipient organizations through the potential for surcharges sent to them. But the decline in sales of such coins in recent years has decreased that potential with some programs like the 2013 Girl Scouts of the USA centennial silver dollar failing to even recoup its costs, which resulted in no funds going to the GSUSA.

There have, in fact, been several legislative efforts in recent years to end the practice of surcharges such as a 2012 bill that was not passed, which would have required any profits to go towards deficit reduction. That move, as Michael Zielinski wrote in Mint News Blog on September 27, 2012: “Would reduce the incentive for private organizations to pursue topics for commemorative coins that “might not be the most nationally significant for a particular year” and that if passed it may result in “a more even handed selection and a broader range of topics for future commemorative coin programs.”

The Mint’s move to create a Mayflower 400th anniversary program on its own is different from past uses of the Treasury Secretary’s existing authority as far as its theme, but the U.S. code language does not say only Liberty-themed gold coins may be produced under this authority. The language is intentionally broad.

Hopefully, this experience will serve as a wake-up call for the Congress to move towards creating more commemorative programs of national interest and away from those rooted in more narrow special interests.

Louis Golino is an award-winning numismatic journalist and writer specializing primarily in modern U.S. and world coins. His work has appeared in Coin World, CoinWeek, The Greysheet and CPG Market Review, The Numismatist, Numismatic News, FUN Topics, The Clarion and COINage, among other publications. His first coin-writing position was with Coin Update.

In 2015, his CoinWeek.com column, “The Coin Analyst,” received an award from the Numismatic Literary Guild for best website column. By 2017, he received an NLG award for best article in a non-numismatic publication with his “Liberty Centennial Designs,” which was published in Elemetal Direct. In October 2018 he received a literary award from the Pennsylvania Association of Numismatists (PAN) for his article, “Lady Liberty: America’s Enduring Numismatic Motif,” that appeared in The Clarion in 2017.

❑

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

         Comments

Good article Louis! But, as to the subject- the Mint better ... by John Q. Coinage

[fatimakhans12345]

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel to the German Bundestag on the UK’s notification of intention to leave the EU

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel to the German Bundestag on the UK’s notification of intention to leave the EU

Madam President,

Fellow members of this House,

Yesterday, the British Prime Minister formally notified the European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw. The European Union turned 60 last weekend; I think everyone in this parliament would have wished for a different birthday present. But there’s no point in lamenting it. We respect the UK’s decision.

We should be under no illusions, however. Brexit forces everyone, including the remaining EU member states, to recalculate their onward journey. When the EU’s second-largest economy decides to leave the Union, the rest can’t go on with business as usual and pretend nothing has happened.

As it ever was, it is clear to us that the European Union is and remains the greatest project to advance civilisation of the 20th century, and even now, in the 21st century, there is no other region on the planet where people’s lives can be as free, safe and democratic as they are in the EU.

The promise of the European Union is peace and prosperity for all, and we are currently seeing how fragile peace is in parts of our continent where the EU cannot effectively exercise its peaceful influence. It is of course one of the EU’s most important tasks to finally return to fulfilling the promise of prosperity too. Nothing undermines the legitimacy of European integration more thoroughly than 40% youth unemployment in many of its southern member states.

Europe will only succeed if it remains a project of hope, rather than hopelessness, for the next generation. That is what makes the fight for more growth, more jobs, better pay and greater social security so incredibly important.

Just as it was in Ireland, France and the Netherlands, it was working class areas in particular which voted against Europe in the UK. In Britain as elsewhere, as I say, the middle classes, people on not very high incomes, no longer saw the European Union as offering any help for their future. They voted against EU membership not simply because they had fallen for the stupid propaganda of UKIP and others but because they had lost hope that their situation could improve as a result of Europe.

The Bank of England attests that the growth of real wages in the UK has been weaker over the last ten years than at any time since the middle of the 19th century – the middle of the 19th century! What is more, that relatively weak growth in wages has been coupled with varied and often extremely unfair distribution of real-wage growth within the country. Specifically, at a time when wealth has been accumulating on an already obscene scale in, for example, the City, large swathes of British society have been excluded from the promise of prosperity.

If we want to prevent frustration outweighing hope for their own future among the people of the EU member states, we primarily need to see to it that life, income and social conditions in Europe improve for everyone again.

This is important in my view, because we have more to think about in Europe today than our future relationship with the United Kingdom. People’s faith in the European Union has been damaged not only by Brexit but by the many other crises of the recent past. With the economic difficulties facing Mediterranean countries, the need to deal with refugees, the lack of security and pessimism, the international community seems more fragile than ever.

The European project has hardly ever known such severe antipathy from populists dangling easy solutions who want to reduce or even demolish Europe. The message from Rome at the weekend was therefore more than just good news. It contained a long-awaited confirmation of commitment to a stronger socially minded Europe.

Don’t misunderstand me; I am not naive. I don’t think that message alone changes everything straight away. It is, however, an initial sign that the other 27 member states are ready for a change of paradigm and want to move the internal market from a Europe based purely on competition towards more of a social market economy. There is a long way to go before we get there, but the change of direction has finally started.

There is really great news coming out of Europe too. It’s astonishing: in almost every country of Europe, according to surveys, older people are currently the most likely to find the EU bad. That was different when the European Union was founded. Back then, the older, parental generation – those who had lost their sons and daughters in the war, whose children had died, been murdered or suffered injuries – they knew after the war that they never wanted to live through that again. They didn’t want another generation of parents to lose their children to war. Nowadays, it is the young who are defending Europe. They are standing up more and more determinedly for European cohesion. They want a strong Europe – because they know that, in a completely changing world where Asia, Latin America and Africa are growing while we shrink, they and their children will only have a voice if it is a common European voice. Even Germany, strong though it is, will not be listened to in the world of the future unless our voice is a European voice.

The people demonstrating the strong “Pulse of Europe” in our city squares every Sunday are stronger than all the crude anti-Europeans on the far right and left. I would add that those demonstrators showing the pulse of Europe are our strongest allies.

Great Britain was part of and an important player in this great community for decades. Shared history with us Germans – which has not been easy and often been painful – is a bond. Today, we are partners in a peaceful Europe with common interests and values. Innumerable Germans are studying and working in the UK. Young Brits are living among us, enlivening our cultural scene, running businesses and founding start-ups. I believe we have to ensure that the friendship which has grown between the people of our countries is not jeopardised by the upcoming negotiations in spite of all the Brexit-related disagreements. We have to stay friends. That wish may not always be realistic when it comes to separations at a private level. But I think it summarises well what our objective should be. We should stay friends – maybe apart from when we are on the football pitch.

The Brexit negotiations with the UK, which the European Union will conduct on our behalf, are not going to be easy. I’m sure some of you know the saying that things will get tough before they get easier again. That applies to these talks. They will be difficult at first, before they once again become easier. However wrong the UK’s departure from the EU is, and however much it will do more harm to the United Kingdom than to us in the end, as I believe it will (and there can be no doubt that it will harm us too) – we nonetheless have no interest in conducting the negotiations in such a way as to end up with a completely ruined or hostile relationship.

I will add that, for the German Government, it is clear that the most important condition in the Brexit negotiations is that they must protect the interests of the citizens of the 27 remaining member states, the member states’ cohesion as well as economic, social and political interests, and the interests of the EU institutions. There will be no British rebate on any of that.

A lot of detailed work is going to be required. Nevertheless, we should go into the Brexit process with self-confidence and ensure that it does no harm to the 27 remaining member states.

We need clear guidelines to ensure this. As I see it, there are four things we need to consider.

Firstly, we will always have a special relationship with the United Kingdom, not least because of the significance of our collaboration on foreign affairs, on combating crime and terrorism, on research and development and particularly on security concerns.

Secondly, Brexit has generated a great sense of uncertainty not only for our economy but primarily for the more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK, including 300,000 Germans. We will therefore have to see to it early on that Brexit, as far as possible, does not leave them disadvantaged. That is why EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has rightly made his motto, “Citizens first!” Important though economic relations are, the first priority must be to safeguard the legal status and interests of European citizens in Britain.

We also need to safeguard the funding of EU programmes, such as the European Social Fund and Commission President Juncker’s investment plan. We expect the UK to keep the commitments it has made on that score.

Thirdly, it is clear that partnership outside the EU, such as the UK  is seeking, must necessary be less than EU membership.

A free trade agreement, however extensive and innovative it may be, is perforce less trade-friendly than the unencumbered internal market. As we have kept reiterating, the internal market is not an à-la-carte menu; its four freedoms are indivisible, and the free movement of people, which makes Europe what it is, is part of that. London understands that.

Fourthly, our British partners must realise that the closer our partnership is to be, the more shared rules we will need. This means common standards not only for competition, benefits and workers’ rights but also for other areas such as the environment and data protection.

What happens next, ladies and gentlemen? To start with, we need to establish the parameters of the negotiations. We will do that with the guidelines from the European Council. And incidentally, the Brexit process is an EU-only affair. The subsequent process to negotiate the future relationship will centre around a mixed agreement, which will require ratification from the German Bundestag and Bundesrat.

Nonetheless, in my view, although we are not directly involved in the Brexit negotiations, we certainly do have an interest – as I said yesterday in committee – in cooperating closely with one another, in keeping you informed at all times and in coming to you whenever you deem it necessary. Even though it may not, as I say, be directly related to the mixed agreement, I feel it is appropriate to keep the Bundestag as closely involved in these negotiations as possible.

The 27 will now agree on a negotiating mandate and presumably begin the actual negotiations at the end of May. They will start with the key issues of the UK’s departure and then, based on what Brexit is going to look like, talk about the future agreement with the UK.

We need to pick up the ideas we discussed in Rome, take them further and put them into practice. We don’t need more Europe in all areas, but we do need a better and more socially minded Europe in many: a Europe that delivers on its promise of prosperity and its promise of peace, secure borders and protection for its people; a Europe where everyone can play their part according to their abilities; a Europe of solidarity and collaboration; a Europe where we don’t have a few big countries speaking for everyone else but where we all have the same worth and treat one another as equals, and a Europe that acts jointly and doesn’t let itself be split up by others.

To be frank, my greatest worry is that this splitting up of Europe has already begun. I find it flattering when China, the United States and Russia keep wanting to negotiate with Germany – but there is a danger in it too. It is a trap we mustn’t fall into. We need to make it clear at all times that yes, we are happy to talk, and we have a duty to foster stability and a responsibility to Europe, but it is ultimately not enough to talk to Germany; everyone here is worth the same. Europe has far more small countries than large ones.

We therefore don’t want to give anyone the impression that they are being sidelined. As important as the Franco-German tandem is, it is ultimately not enough. The smaller member states in particular need to know that we see them as equal partners, on an equal footing, and that we want to ensure that everyone around the world deals with Europe, not just with parts of Europe. I believe that this is extremely important.

Let me say one last thing. This Europe is perhaps going to take a little courage, no doubt about that. A few weeks ago, I was in the Clock Room at the French Foreign Ministry, where Robert Schuman held his famous speech. I stood there and thought, “My God, what brave men and women they must have been!” So soon after the end of the Second World War – and it was very soon afterwards –  they invited Germany to sit at the table of Europe’s civilised nations: the country that had pillaged and murdered its way through Europe. I do not think that the people of Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy or anywhere else responded with nothing but approval and applause when their political leaders said, “Come on, let’s invite the Germans.” I think there was a lot of criticism. But they had the courage to go ahead with the plan all the same.

I believe we need to have courage today as well, though I suspect it won’t take as much courage as the politicians needed back in the day. When we see what is possible and we know where we want to go, then I think we will be able to tap into the requisite courage – and then we will not need to fear that Europe is in any danger.

Thank you very much.

from UK & Germany http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2017/170330-BM-BT-Brexit.html?nn=479796