The United Kingdom and the European Union finally reached a post-Brexit agreement today, just a week before the end of the Brexit transition period.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the good news during a press conference this afternoon.

“It was a long and winding road, but we have got a good deal to show for it,“ the EU chief said.

In a separate press conference at Downing Street, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proudly declared “it was a good deal for the whole of Europe.”

The historic deal, which took 11 months to forge, will allow the UK and the EU to trade goods with zero tariff and zero quota. New arrangements on police and judicial cooperation will also be enforced.

Both sides have finally agreed on EU member states’ fishing rights and access to UK waters, which proved to be a thorny issue toward the end of negotiations.

The EU and the UK will continue cooperation in other areas of interest including climate change, security, and transport.

“Together, we still achieve more than we do apart,” said the EU chief. “It is time to leave Brexit behind, our future is made in Europe.”

The post EU and UK get a Brexit Christmas miracle appeared first on Brussels Express.

After 11 months of dramatic negotiations, a post-Brexit trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union is expected to be announced today, the 24th of December.

EU and UK negotiators haggled all through the night over the major bone of contention:  fishing rights in British waters.

The UK exited the EU on January 31 of this year, but it is still under obligation to follow the union’s regulations, such as the Common Fisheries Policy, until the end of 2020.

Under the Common Fisheries Policy, member states have full fishing access to each other’s waters, but they have to agree on the volume of fish that can be caught from each species.

The British government has demanded a higher fishing quota share in its own waters while the EU is pushing for more access to UK waters for its member states.

The EU has made it clear that both sides have to reach a fair deal on fisheries before any free trade agreement can happen.

Without a deal, border checks and widespread taxes will be imposed on goods exchanged between the UK and the EU starting in January.

Negotiations will continue today. If an agreement is reached, both sides have until December 31 to get their parliaments to approve the Brexit deal document, which contains about 2,000 pages.

The post Brexit Christmas miracle: UK-EU deal expected today appeared first on Brussels Express.

In June 2019, the UK had held a referendum in which 52% voted that they wanted to leave the European Unin. As such, Brexit was initially scheduled on March 29. This date has already been postponed twice, once for April 12 and then October 31.

On Monday, the 27 countries of the European Union accepted the request, by extending once again the ‘deadline’ to January 21, 2020.

The EU27 has agreed that it will accept the UK’s request for a #Brexit flextension until 31 January 2020. The decision is expected to be formalised through a written procedure.

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) October 28, 2019

The post EU27 accept UK’s request for Brexit extension until 31 January 2020 appeared first on Brussels Express.

Pro-Europeans, some dressed as the ‘Incredible Sulk’ and Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg look-alikes, parodied the promises of Brexiteer politicians, which some condemned as “brazen lies”. The mood was defiant, even as EU leaders just a few hundred metres away were discussing Johnson’s last-minute accord with the European Commission. Many of the participants were British citizens who have lived in Belgium for years but now look forward to an uncertain future.

“No form of Brexit will make us better off, safer or freer,” declared Naomi Smith, chief executive of the Best for Britain campaign group founded by Gina Miller, which organised the event together with Pro-Europa. “This pathetic deal is unlikely to pass through the Houses of Parliament.” She called on the EU to allow more time for a second referendum to take place. “The majority of the UK electorate are now Remainers,” she insisted. “We speak for millions of British people when we say we want to stay in Europe.”

Laura Shields, representing ‘British in Europe’ talked about the 5 million UK citizens living in the EU and Europeans in the UK. She condemned a British government announcement that health care for British citizens living in EU will only be funded for six months after Brexit and highlighted individual cases of elderly cancer sufferers in Spain and elsewhere. “The UK is abdicating any moral or legal responsibility for the most vulnerable people,” she protested.

Nicky James, a UK citizen living in the Netherlands, came close to tears as she spoke of the frustration that led her to set up the ‘Final Say For All’ Foundation. Holland does not allow dual nationality, she explained, but with a Dutch husband in poor health and elderly parents in the UK, she fears losing the right to return to Britain. “Many of us were denied a vote in 2016 on something that is going to impact our lives in such a huge way. There are millions of stories like mine. We are fighting for a final say for all 5 million of us.”

Individual testimonies were coupled with speeches by politicians, including Alessandro Fusacchia, who represents Italians abroad in Rome’s Chamber of Deputies. “You are not alone, and we are trying to mobilise Italians in the UK,” he told anti-Brexit demonstrators. “We are trying to send a message that Brexit will be very bad news also for Italians in Italy.”

Richard Corbett, leader of the Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, insisted that the proposed deal was not what Britons voted for in the 2016 referendum. “We have a minority government in Britain. It’s right to take any deal back to the public, and we will be campaigning to stay in the EU.”

The post Brussels campaigners vow to fight on to stop Brexit appeared first on Brussels Express.

Between Rond-Point Schuman and the Cinquantenaire Park (petite rue de la Loi). Access via the Park side.
Pro-Europa and Best for Britain are organising an event just before the European Council meeting on 17/18 October to highlight widespread opposition to Brexit among British citizens. Passionate speakers and offbeat photo opportunities will provide footage to liven up European Council coverage. #FinalSay #DitchBrexit

Speakers include:
– Naomi Smith, CEO Best for Britain
– Richard Corbett, leader of the Labour MEPs
– Irina von Weise, LibDem MEP for London
– Alessandro Fusacchia, Member of Italian Chamber of Deputies for Italians abroad
– Laura Shields of British in Europe

Photogenic ‘stunts’ and music include Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg mimics, a visual portrayal of post-Brexit difficulties with volunteers entangled in Brexit red tape and songs by local Brits and ‘EU Supergirl’, Madeleina Kay.

The event provides a platform for Brits in Brussels and elsewhere and Europeans who want Britain to stay in the EU. We call for an extension to the Article 50 deadline of 31 October to allow a referendum to take place on the government’s Leave plan vs No Brexit at all.

This is being manifested:
Lack of any democratic mandate for the Johnson-Cummings regime or for any particular Brexit and especially a no-deal;
Huge pro-European grassroots movement in the UK, emerging consensus on staying in the EU and renewing the UK’s democracy, cross-party cooperation in rejecting a no-deal, moves to form a new government, and the need to keep the UK in the EU family.

The post Stop Brexit Action on Thursday 17 October appeared first on Brussels Express.

The RDG reversed its decision in the space of 24 hours after it was faced with a formidable reaction to its ultimately short-lived decision to end the UK’s participation in rail scheme.

Within hours of their initial decision, campaign group New Europeans and others had mobilised to defend what Gary Paterson, an EU youth activist and New Europeans member from Scotland described as an « iconic connection with Europe which has facilitated the exchange of ideas, experiences, and friendships between young Europeans for decades.”

The RDG group which represents train operators made the dramatic U-turn following renewed talks with Eurail Group, the company which runs the Interrail and Eurail programmes.

In a statement, the RDG group said it had reversed its original decision following, « strong reaction on social media to news of our departure ».

We invite you to join and sign: #DontLeaveInterrail. Your support would mean a lot to us: https://t.co/I8hzfambig

— Martin Speer (@martin_speer) August 7, 2019

Had RDG decided to go ahead with its plan, Interrail passes purchased after 1 January 2020 would not have been valid on any rail services in the UK except for the Eurostar service to London, cutting off other parts of the UK with Scotland particularly badly affected.

New Europeans joined forces with #EUSupergirl and Young European of the Year, Madeleina Kay to fight the decision as well as with Vincent Herr and Martin Speer, the two Berlin-based campaigners who campaigned for the introduction of a free interrail pass for all 18 years olds in the EU.

Using an iconic image from the Harry Potter films, New Europeans and the quickly assembled campaign launched a petition which immediately began to trend on social media.

A campaign source said, « It is unusual for powerful commercial interests to give way to even the most determined of campaigners, but that is indeed what has happened. »

Responding to news of the campaign’s success, Vincent Herr and Martin Speer said: »We are truly overjoyed that Britain will not leave #Interrail/#Eurail. »

He added, « Thank you to thousands of people who supported #DontLeaveInterrail and many other initiatives. Civil and political action can change things – it can re-unite us Europeans. »

The post Campaigners welcome U turn over UK involvement in popular Interrail scheme appeared first on Brussels Express.

The post Video: Boris Johnson’s first speech as UK’s Prime Minister appeared first on Brussels Express.

In this interview, Alan offers his own unique perspective on Brexit, Europe, and the political and historical relationship between the UK and the EU more generally.

TMN: Is it fair to say that you’re a bit of an anomaly, being a pro-Brexit expat living in Brussels?

AA: Well I certainly appear to be. Most of the people I know in the expat community either work or have worked for a European institution, mostly the Commission. All of them are Remainers – turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. But among the people I know who have worked in industry, you get a more mixed view.

TMN: So are you able to discuss Brexit with your expat friends here – most of whom, I assume, are pro-Remain?

AA: Not very easily, even if they are Leavers. People seem to be very fixed in their position, for example on whether the EU political process is democratic or not. As I see it this is also the case with UK politicians, whose opinions are the ones that really matter. I’m not aware of a single one who has changed his or her position in 3 years of debate. I think there’s also a problem of understanding; I’ve met people who think the EU is the same thing as Europe. So when I find myself being lectured on people’s EU beliefs, I change the subject.

TMN: Did you vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum?

AA: No, like almost all the people I know here, I’d lived in Belgium for more than 15 years and so I wasn’t eligible to vote. This issue of eligibility is interesting. There’s an argument that our home country’s membership of the EU affects us long term residents, and so we should have had a say in the referendum. There’s even a European Commission code of good practice on referendums which recommends that people resident abroad should be allowed to vote. But now that we can have Belgian nationality, long term residents like me should really play our part in Belgian rather than UK politics.

TMN: But you would have voted Leave?

AA: Yes, absolutely. I’m a Leaver, as the Monkees almost said.

TMN: Why?

AA: Because as I see it the UK has been slowly leaving the EU ever since its inception. The referendum has simply brought that to a head. I appreciate that such a claim requires a certain amount of justification.

In his first proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community in May 1950, Robert Schuman described it as a first step in the federation of Europe. Before then other leaders had been proposing a United States of Europe, most notably, as Guy Verhofstadt is fond of pointing out, Winston Churchill in 1930 and 1946 and other times. With the famous exception of Jacques Delors, most European leaders have remained fairly quiet about European federalism, but it remains an objective of the EU. And so it should in my opinion if Europe is to hold its own alongside the likes of China, Russia and the USA.

In 1973 the UK became a member – and a very positive one – of the European Community, and remained so for 20 years. But then a major step towards a United States of Europe was taken in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty. The UK signed it, but negotiated no fewer than five opt-outs, most notably the Euro and Schengen. That is the point, in my view, when the UK started the process of leaving. They developed a sort of half and half membership, half in and half out. I think that’s bad for the future of the EU, and even the UK. The UK wants economic but not political collaboration with the EU. So given the chance, I would have voted to put an end to it. For what it’s worth, I did vote, to remain, in the 1975 referendum, along with two thirds of the electorate.

TMN: So, in your view, the UK’s political situation in relation to Europe was inherently an unstable one?

AA: Well it wasn’t during its 20 years in the EEC, but after Maastricht yes. I wouldn’t use the word “unstable”, to me it has been more a case of gradually drifting away. And of course the EU has moved forward since Maastricht, especially with a European Constitution, which although not ratified was incorporated into the Treaty of Lisbon. For me an example of this “drifting away” is the UK’s reaction to the concept of “ever closer union”. In David Cameron’s pathetic attempt to negotiate a “reformed” EU, which the electorate could then choose to leave or remain in, he arranged that the UK would be exempted from “ever closer union”. This would have been yet another opt-out. He also arranged that the UK be further distanced, protected even, from the eurozone. These are the actions of a country that wants to distance itself from a European Union which is trying to move its members closer together, not further apart.

If the UK was as fond of EU membership as the 75% of MPs who are Remainers would have us believe, it would have wanted to contribute to the development of the EU, as it did of the EEC. It would embrace monetary union, and Schengen, and the other things. The UK makes the second largest financial contribution to the EU, and it should make a large political one.

TMN: I’m a bit confused; it appears that you would have been happy if the UK was properly part of the EU. So why were you in favour of Leave?

AA: Because, as I suggest, the UK simply isn’t “properly” part of the EU. You can’t turn the clock back of course, but if the UK had joined the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, as it was invited, even begged to do, it could have made its appropriate level of contribution to all future developments, namely the EEC, the EU and towards, dare I say it, a United States of Europe. There are lots of interesting reasons why they didn’t join back then, which were very logical at the time. The history of all this makes very interesting reading and helps explain the very awkward position the UK finds itself in right now.

There’s another aspect of what we are calling “proper” EU membership. The ECSC was created to bind the coal and steel production of France and Germany together in a way that would prevent a repeat of the wars between them. But because of their relative size in the initial group of six, these two countries also established a dominant political position which has remained the case ever since. We can see this right now in the sometimes undignified process of selecting the EU’s new leaders. Macron even glorified this duo, if I can believe the BBC website, when he said on July 2nd “…the nominations were the fruit of a deep Franco-German entente”. At least he didn’t call it an entente cordiale. But if there has to be a group of top dogs in this union, then the UK should be one of the dogs.

I have been given examples of how Germany will break the rules if it suits them, and I’m not talking about my Volkswagen Golf. I would like to see the UK challenging this kind of behaviour, but I don’t see it happening.

TMN: So are you saying that, had the UK joined the ECSC when it was originally formed in 1951 – or, perhaps, had joined the EC earlier than it did – then you would have been in favour of Remain?

AA: I would certainly be in favour of Remain if the UK had been what we are calling a “proper” member. Joining the ECSC in 1951, or the EC much earlier than they did might have enabled this, but who can tell? There are a lot of “ifs” in all this re-writing of history. The UK was even cooler about Europe back then than it is now. Churchill argued for a United States of Europe but not with the UK as a member. The Labour party in the post war period was dead against it.

TMN: Do you also perhaps think that the UK is something of a “European outlier”, one which is crucially different to France and Germany in other important respects?

AA: I think this may have been the case until their first application to join the EEC, but that now, apart from what I’m saying about opt-outs, there’s no good reason for any crucial difference.

At the end of the Second World War the UK was in a very different position than other European countries that had been involved in it. The UK did not have to reconstruct itself politically. And it felt that its relationships with other parts of the world were more important. Its objective of preventing German domination of the continent had been achieved, with a great deal of help from members of the British Commonwealth. It was then time to return to its own agenda.

French President Charles de Gaulle twice vetoed UK membership of the EEC because (or at least he said it was because) the UK had too close a relationship with the USA. You could argue he was right, given the way that Blair took the UK into the Iraq war, treating the views of his EU partners with disdain, you could even say contempt. And the media like to talk about UK’s “special relationship” with the USA, but I am of the view that this is more a myth than a reality. The Americans do what suits them; Trump is making sure of that.

But it’s hopefully time for us to forget all this war stuff. The only people who remember anything about the war are oldies like me, and all I really remember is the end of sweet rationing. And that was in 1953. A younger generation of British politicians will need to work out what should be the UK’s role going forward. I think it will be easier for them to do this with the UK outside of the EU than in it. Is it the UK’s destiny to have a unique position, trading with the European Union in the same way that it trades with other major blocks, but politically independent? Can they even do it? They will find out.

Nothing stays the same in geopolitics. There could come a time, not in my lifetime and possibly not in yours, when a UK that has forgotten about its empire and imaginary special relationships is ready to be a real member of the United States of Europe.

TMN: I’m assuming you’re against having a second referendum?

AA: Based on what I’ve been saying I am. But if parliament wants to give the electorate a second vote, who am I to say they shouldn’t. Although the government said it would implement the result, the referendum is not legally binding and a new government could decide not to.

TMN: What do you think of the possibility of a no deal Brexit?

AA: It looks as if it’s more of a possibility than negotiating a different deal. And if the UK leaves without a deal there will no doubt be significant problems. The UK might well go downhill for a couple of years. But I don’t believe the economic damage needs to be irreversible. Businesses in the UK and the EU will work out how to continue to trade with one another whatever the rules. That’s what business does. Not sure if you can say the same about the politicians.

TMN: Final question: Do you feel British, or Belgian, or both?

AA: I think the simple answer to that question is that I’m English and European. I will become a Belgian citizen in a while and that will oblige me to vote. So I’ll have to get more interested than I was in Belgian politics. But I should say that how I feel about my nationality is unaffected by the UK’s membership, or not, of the EU.

– To get in touch with the author of this article, please write to

The post “I would absolutely have voted for Brexit” – an interview with a Brexiteer living in Belgium appeared first on Brussels Express.

In this interview, Dave talks about his life working for the EU, the impact of the Brexit referendum, and his love for his adopted country, Belgium.

(An interview I conducted a couple of months ago with Dave’s son, Alex, can be found here.)

TMN: Were you always a fan of the EU?

DS: If I’m honest, when I started out I didn’t really know that much about it: I wasn’t into news or politics at the time. I was so conscious of this that after two years I took a year’s sabbatical to go to the College of Europe in Bruges to do a masters in European Studies. The other students thought I was crazy. The only reason they were at the College was to land a job at the EU. They weren’t so interested in learning about Europe. Whereas I had the job, but did want to learn about it …

TMN: What was the reaction among your family and friends back in England to you working for the EU?

DS: In the early days most people thought, “Wow, he’s done pretty well for himself.” People in general were very supportive. This feeling lasted for about 10 or 15 years. But, slowly, things started to change. The attitude of the British people toward the EEC began to shift almost certainly because of the British media and the lies it circulated. Remember, Boris Johnson started inventing anti-EEC pieces for the Telegraph in 1989. Newspapers found that making up or circulating ridiculous stories about European rules on cucumbers, bananas and prawn cocktail crisps appealed to their British readership and turned them against the EU (or EEC). They seemed to figure that they could sell papers by blaming the EU for pretty much all of the problems in British society, and it became convenient for large segments of the British political establishment to blame the EU for anything that it could. Certainly by the end of the 1980s a lot of people had seriously started to hate it.

It eventually became so bad that when I went back to the UK, I actually stopped telling people that I worked for the EU. My colleagues who ended up moving back to the UK after retirement also used to tell me that they never mentioned to anyone in the UK who they used to work for; I mean, if you said you had been a convict they’d probably have given you more respect!

I remember an interesting story which is relevant here. In the early 1990s, I met a prominent British journalist who was based in Brussels as the BBC’s EU correspondent. I asked him a fairly blunt question: “Why don’t you ever publish anything positive about the EU?”

His reply was interesting. He said: “I used to write both positive and negative stories, but then after a while I realised that only the negative ones were getting published. So I eventually stopped writing positive stories – there was no point.”

TMN: That’s amazing. And this is the BBC we’re talking about – not The Sun, or The Daily Express!

DS: Yes. Again, there just seemed to be an appetite among the British public for nasty stories about the EU. And remember that many of them were fictitious, often made up by Boris Johnson in his column for The Daily Telegraph.

TMN: Do you think this appetite for nasty stories was itself partly created by an antagonistic media system?

DS: Yes, maybe. I also remember another similar story. I sang in an octet called The Commissionaires. We all worked for the Commission and enjoyed a cappella close harmony singing. Just after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty one of our members set the Treaty’s preamble to Gregorian chant. Our audiences loved it and eventually we were asked to perform it for the BBC in the Grand Place and they filmed it.

But when they showed the clip on the lunchtime news, the BBC’s comment on our performance was ridiculous. They basically said: “Look at these British workers for the Commission: not even they are taking the Treaty seriously!” But we were! I mean, we were parodying the language a little bit, but we certainly weren’t mocking the spirit or the principle or even the details of the Treaty. But that’s not what the BBC reported.

TMN: Can you say a bit more about how your relationship with the UK changed over this period?

DS: Well, I noticed during my time working for the EU that the UK was always an outlier of sorts; that it never really belonged in the same way that every other country did. It was always complaining about its various obligations, seeking opt-outs, things like that. And I found myself apologising to colleagues about the British attitude, because I believed in the EU.

Largely as a result of this, in addition to the biased media coverage and the serious animosity large segments of the British people bore towards the EU, I began, slowly, to drift more and more apart from the UK. I remember, around 20 years ago or so, my mum said to me: “You really don’t like England any more, do you?” And, in a way, it was true. Maybe I had just lost touch.

TMN: What was your reaction to the Brexit vote?

DS: I was totally shocked, and seriously disappointed. It felt like a knife in the gut, almost a personal violation; as though my entire professional life had been invalidated, that it had been for nothing. It was also, in my view, a real scandal that people like me, British citizens living abroad, couldn’t vote, especially given that we probably knew more about the EU than the average British citizen.

TMN: Did it affect you in a practical sense?

DS: Not really. Myself and my wife, and my daughter, already all had Belgian citizenship. My son never bothered to get his though: he’s still only a Brit. It could possibly affect him.

TMN: What do you think about what’s happening now in the UK with regard to Brexit?

DS: It’s a constant soap opera. I initially thought that a solution would be found very quickly: that either the British establishment would claim that the referendum result was only advisory and Britain would therefore remain a member of the EU, or that the EU and the UK would quickly be able to reach a deal. I was wrong. Problems arose that I don’t think many people had even considered, or knew about, like the Irish border. The UK is now such a divided country, it’s unbelievable. Ironically it wanted to leave the European Union, but now its own union is starting to appear under threat.

TMN: What do you think were the main causes of the vote?

DS: Well, one factor is the lies and bias of the media over several decades, as I already explained. Another factor, in my view, is the after-effect of the 2008 financial crisis. I don’t understand why bankers can play fast and loose and still not get punished. People felt really hard done by, and justifiably so. They hit out at the first thing they could hit out at: the political establishment wanted them to remain, so they voted to leave. There are also other big related issues, like gross economic inequality. But I think the vote was largely a vote against the establishment, rather than merely a vote against the EU.

TMN: What do you think is going to happen?

DS: I don’t know. It’s all such a mess. Your guess is as good as mine.

TMN: What do you want to happen now?

DS: Well, part of me doesn’t really want the UK to be part of the EU anymore. It always seemed to act as a brake on closer integration. As I explained before, it’s always been a bit of an outlier. On top of that, I really don’t have much fondness left for the UK. I wouldn’t be too upset if it ceased to exist, really: I’m in favour of a united Ireland, and of an independent Scotland. Another great side-effect of Brexit is that for three years now the other 27 Member States have been speaking with one voice on the issue.

However, I’m also aware that the EU doesn’t really want Britain to leave, as it might harm the trade of a lot of European countries, particularly those geographically close to the UK, like Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Ireland. It really angers me, though, that even though it was the UK that asked to leave, a lot of people in Britain seem incensed that the EU is not bending over backwards to give the UK all it is asking for in the Brexit negotiations, even though the EU position was crystal clear and unwavering from the beginning. Part of me really wants to see the EU put the knife in, to punish the UK.

TMN: But surely you don’t want the average person in Britain to suffer?

DS: Of course not. But I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing a lot of senior members of the media suffer, as well as most of the politicians.

TMN: But don’t you think that there are, at least, some legitimate reasons for criticising the EU?

DS: If I’m honest, I’ve almost certainly been indoctrinated by the EU just by virtue of working there. The sheer pleasure of working alongside 27 other nationalities is so educational and stimulating. How can anyone ever be racist? But one problem I think the EU has is that it needs to be more open about what it is and what it does, particularly in the UK.

TMN: But how is it supposed to do that, with some of the major UK media outlets being so vehemently anti-EU?

DS: That’s a good question. I don’t know. Take ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) projects for example. Travelling through Greece, Romania, etc. you see huge signs up acknowledging the contributions from the EU. The UK benefits from similar contributions, but they will be mentioned on a small notice board about A4 size – often hidden behind a tree with the EU flag almost invisible!

TMN: What do you think of the criticism of the EU’s handling of the eurozone crisis, particularly in places like Greece?

DS: I have a lot of Greek friends – Greek is one of my languages – and I did feel very bad about that, and very sorry for the Greeks. But I was in Greece for a week recently and the general opinion now seems to be that it was necessary just to restore some kind of order and things are now improving a lot.

TMN: What about the argument that the EU is non- or even anti-democratic?

DS: That’s an argument that a lot of Leavers tend to make: they keep ranting about the EU being an undemocratic organisation run by unelected officials, but it’s not true. The Commission runs the EU in more-or-less the same way that the civil service runs the UK Government – and the civil service is not elected. Furthermore, the main EU decisions are taken by the Council, which is made up of Ministers from the Member States who are themselves elected. The democracy is there, it’s just indirect.

The argument is also deeply hypocritical. The UK has a system of government which is a long way from being democratic. Many people’s votes just do not count if they happen to live in a “safe” Conservative or Labour seat. The current system is weighted heavily in favour of the two major political parties, making it very difficult for smaller parties to get a seat. Just have a look at the last general election. See how many people voted Green, UKIP, Labour and Conservative – and how those votes translated into seats. This is not democracy.

TMN: Would you be in favour of a fully federalised, democratic Europe – a “United States of Europe”?

DS: Yes, I think so, though I in some ways I would prefer to see a Europe of regions, as opposed to a Europe of nation-states. As it stands, I think certain EU member states have too much power relative to others, especially France, Germany, and (formerly) the UK. Having a Europe of regions would go some way toward solving that problem. Although it might be difficult to organise …

Imagine a debate with Flanders, Catalonia, Malta, Yorkshire and Normandy arguing against Sicily, Crete, Westphalia and the Isle of Wight!

TMN: In what ways do you think you hold similar, or dissimilar, views to your son, Alex?

DS: Alex is not as much in favour of the EU as I am. I think in large part he views the EU as an obstacle to third world development, by its imposition of high external tariffs and so on. He’s also been very critical of the way the EU has handled the migrant crisis. He sees the EU as a club of the rich and something of a privileged bubble – and I do sympathise with that view. But I still think that the benefits of the EU far outweigh any cons.

TMN: What, in your view, are the main benefits of the EU?

DS: Well, it’s kept peace in Europe for 70 years. It’s made travel so much easier. It’s allowed products to circulate seamlessly across different countries. It’s allowed people, ideas, and cultures to mingle with and to learn from one another. It has done much to protect the environment, including birds and animals, by designating huge conservation areas . It has cleaned up the seas and the air. And it was a front-runner with action on climate change. And in many areas – chemicals, drugs, foodstuffs, etc. – it makes life easier because authorisation is required only once, rather than in each individual country like in the old days.

I remember that on the 50th anniversary of the of Treaty of Rome the Independent newspaper ran a front page with the title: “50 reasons to thank Europe”. It included things like the improvement of workers’ rights, environmental protection, action on climate change. In short, it’s had loads of benefits.

TMN: Final question: Do you feel British? Or Belgian? Or European?

DS: Well, I certainly feel more European than British. I would like to be able to say that I’m European, though I’m also very happy to say that I’m Belgian: I really feel like I belong here. I speak Dutch and French. I have Belgian friends. I’m active in the community – I’ve even stood in local elections. In short, I definitely don’t feel stateless. I feel very much at home here in Belgium.

To contact the author, please write to tmollernielsen@brussels-express.eu

The post “If I said I had been a convict the British would probably have given me more respect” – a retired EU official reflects on Brexit, his relationship to the UK, and the future of Europe appeared first on Brussels Express.

During our conversation we touched on a variety of topics, including Tim’s background, his relationship to the UK and Belgium, and of course the Brexit process.

Thomas Moller-Nielsen: Can you speak a little bit about your parents’ backgrounds?

Tim Gheysen: My mother is from a single-parent, working-class family in Sheffield, who, with a bit of intelligence and a lot of hard work, was able to gain a place studying modern languages at Oxford. My father is from a Flemish working-class family in Kortrijk. They met while working for the European institutions in Brussels.

TMN: What language was spoken at home?

TG: My parents always spoke English together. In fact, the language spoken at home was almost exclusively English. I picked up my Dutch from speaking with Flemish friends who lived nearby, and from very occasionally speaking it with my father, with whom I mostly spoke English.

I remember making a conscious decision when I was very young to try to speak Dutch more regularly. I realised that my entire schooling was either in English or in French, and that I really wasn’t getting the chance to speak much Dutch on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, I realised the importance and value that Dutch, and languages in general, could play in my future; I figured that, if I didn’t try to work on my Dutch now, I might end up losing the ability to speak it entirely.

These days, I speak Dutch just as fluently as I speak English, although English is still definitely my mother tongue. I also speak to my dad in Dutch far more than I used to; now we probably speak in English just as much as we speak in Dutch.

TMN: Where did you go for university?

TG: I went to the University of Sheffield. I read Business Studies, French and Spanish. At first, I was excited about going to live and study in England. But I ended up really struggling with British culture, particularly British university culture and the associated binge-drinking. I mean, freshers’ week was fine – it obviously involved a lot of drinking – but then it just stayed like that all year, every year!

TMN: So you never seriously considered staying in the UK after your degree?

TG: No.

TMN: Do you feel more Belgian, or more British?

TG: I definitely feel more Belgian than British, although I also don’t feel 100% Belgian. I think I lack a full cultural understanding of the UK – and this is in spite of the fact that I listen to a lot of British music, read British books, watch a lot of British TV shows and films, and so on. But, in some respects, I also feel that I’m not fully Belgian. For instance, because I went to an international school I don’t have any experience of the Belgian curriculum or school system. These kinds of things add up.

TMN: Did you vote in the Brexit referendum?

TG: No, I didn’t. I hadn’t registered, and on top of that I also didn’t really have the time: I was busy setting up my new recruitment business.

TMN: Do you regret not having voted?

TG: Yes, as I would have voted Remain. But I also partly feel that it would have been unjust to vote. I don’t feel very British, so why should I be making decisions on their behalf?

TMN: Why would you have voted Remain?

TG: Because I love the EU. I appreciate the way in which it tries to erode the divisions that tend to accompany the separation of territory into nation-states. I also feel that the EU furthers the ability of member states to collaborate, communicate, and achieve a better world. It’s a great example of what cooperation among states can accomplish.

TMN: What are your thoughts on the divisions within British society, in particular British people’s differing attitudes towards the EU?

TG: Well, there’s no doubt that there was a certain amount of hostility toward the EU prior to the Brexit vote. Having said that, there was no real demand among the British people for a referendum. It just wasn’t the main priority for most people.

TMN: So you don’t think the referendum should have been called?

TG: No, I don’t think the referendum should have been called. Or, rather, if it had to be called, it should not have been called in the way that it was. Basically, I think the referendum was held without the UK’s leaders having a real plan of what to do if the result was to leave. Cameron thought he could call the referendum and win it, but he fatally underestimated the opposition and the overall level of resentment among the British public. He had no plan of what to do if Britain left; he’d done no research. And now he’s dragged the entire country into this ridiculous situation. I mean, regardless of whether you’re for leaving or for staying in the EU, no one could seriously have wanted what’s happening in the UK right now.

I also feel that at the time of the vote there was very little actual information conveyed to the public by the British media. It was mostly very partisan and sensationalist, both from the right-wing and the left-wing press. In my view, the media really failed to help the British people grasp the central issues. As a result of this, I think the British people had no idea, really, what leaving entailed; about what it would mean. This even applies in my own case: I like to consider myself a relatively well-educated and well-informed person, and yet I felt at the time that I couldn’t in all honesty make a fully informed assessment of whether the UK should stay in the EU or leave. And if the population isn’t properly informed, it sort of defeats the whole point of having a referendum in the first place, doesn’t it?

TMN: Isn’t this rather an elitist view, saying that people are too ill-informed to be able to make such a decision?

TG: No, not at all – as I said, it applies to myself as well! I couldn’t truly say that I made a properly informed assessment of the situation, despite being well-informed on the matter relative to most other people. I’m also confident that there are plenty people in the UK who feel the same way as me.

TMN: Why wouldn’t you have abstained in the referendum, then, if you admit to not being sufficiently well-informed on the issue?

TG: I was going with the information that I had at the time. On balance, given the limited information that I had, I thought it would be best to vote Remain. (Though, as I previously mentioned, I didn’t actually vote.) I didn’t really know what the best option was, though. To be honest, I would have preferred not to have been in a position where I was expected to make such a decision.

TMN: Are you against having referendums in general?

TG: No, I’m not. But I feel referendums should only be used when the nature and consequences of the decisions are immediately obvious and clear to the public, for instance in the case of legalising abortion or the death penalty. Cases that are more complicated, such as trade agreements or Brexit, should mostly be handled by elected officials who are paid to understand, consider and research those issues.

So no, I’m not in principle against referendums, or even against having a referendum on the UK leaving the EU. But the UK government should have first spent a substantial period of time studying all of the likely consequences in the event of leaving or staying, and then presented those findings, honestly, to the British people. Similarly, the media should have done its job, and presented the information to the British people in a fully factual, non-partisan manner: “this is what happens if we stay, this is what happens if we go”.

If both the media and the government had done that, and people really wanted to leave, then fine, we should have left the EU: that’s part of living in a democracy. I just disagree with the way the referendum was run, and the reasons for it.

TMN: Are you angry with the people who voted Leave?

TG: No, not at all. Obviously, in a democracy they have the right to vote as they please. They’re not bad people. But I do think the vast majority of them were not properly informed of the central issues – which (to repeat) I think was also true of the vast majority of Remainers, including myself.

TMN: What do you think the future holds for the UK?

TG: I think the UK will probably leave the EU eventually. But I also think that the EU wants to punish the UK, to make an example out of them. And I don’t think the EU is wrong to do so: in my view, the UK should contribute to the EU system if it wants to benefit from it. It’s likely paying your taxes. You may not like it, but it’s necessary in order to have good things like roads, schools, and hospitals.

There’s also no doubt in my mind that the EU feels very hurt by the the UK’s decision to leave, which is very understandable: the EU was created as a model of unity with shared beliefs and values, where different nations with different languages and cultures could come together to form a stronger whole. It’s a model that the UK has played a large part in sustaining and developing over the years – and now, after the Brexit vote, it’s looking like it might collapse.

If you also feel that you might be worth interviewing on similar issues, feel free to get in touch at tmollernielsen@brussels-express.eu

The post “I honestly don’t know whether I should have voted Remain or Leave” – A Belgian-Brit reflects on Brexit appeared first on Brussels Express.