Amid the daily high drama of Brexit, it is easy to lose track of the structural shifts, or lack thereof, that may be associated with the UK’s possible departure from the European Union. One of them, and not the least, is the potential impact on the European and global financial system. London is currently the undisputed financial hub of Europe of the broader region encompassing the Middle East and Africa; together with New York, it is one of the two still-leading financial centers worldwide, despite the ongoing rise of Asia and especially China.
Most ways to resolve the current stalemate in the UK parliament with respect to Brexit imply that the UK will no longer be part of the internal market for financial services. There is a risk that capital market services in the EU-27 will decline in scope and quality without the UK in the internal market but this risk can be mitigated. We propose that the EU and the UK form a joint high-level committee to develop proposals for simplified and better regulation that strengthens market discipline.
The increased protectionist turn taken by the United States, including steel and aluminium tariffs levied against the EU and other countries and a potential trade war with China, comes at an awkward time for the United Kingdom. While the United Kingdom is negotiating its exit from the European Union, it still remains within the EU and its customs union and so is dependent on the EU to negotiate on its behalf.
If there was a moment when it was possible to speculate that the British election would send a clear signal about Britain’s relationship with Europe, it was short-lived. The British people may well deliver a decisive majority to Theresa May and, in the best-case scenario for her next government, she may be able to leverage that majority to win a good deal for Britain and to lay the foundations for Britain’s new role in Europe and at the global level. Even if that all came to pass, however, future historians would be hard-pressed to s
The Brexit had at least the advantage of forcing Europeans to propose multiple projects in order to better pool their military capabilities. Admittedly, in this situation, there is a combination of favourable circumstances for initiatives that aim to revive the CSDP. First of all, Europeans made this decision to revive CSDP in 2013. The initiative came from France, jointly with the new President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker.
With the British referendum only a few months away and opinion polls pointing to an uncertain outcome, the key question of what would happen if the UK left the EU remains largely unanswered. All kinds of estimates have been kicking around. Some have said 3 million British jobs would be lost if the UK were to leave the EU. Some others have suggested that Brexit would make the UK better off by 10% of its GDP.
Police infiltration of political groups posing a threat to the British State and society has been the subject of intensive coverage by national media outlets for the past four years. Central to media stories have been some unethical techniques employed, and several controversial activities carried out, by two units working for the Metropolitan Police Service, namely the Special Demonstration Squad (1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (1999-2011).
Executive branches of governments have always enjoyed a primacy in managing foreign policy and waging war. However, the highly influential parliamentary debates in the United Kingdom, the United States or France on the Syrian conflict have given rise to the perception that parliaments are becoming increasingly influent in first-order international affairs. When looking at recent developments concerning the Syrian crisis, could it be that parliamentary prerogatives in matters of foreign and defense policy are gaining new momentum?